Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sunday Open Thread

Because American democracy created a framework for an argument without end.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 12, 2010; 9:06 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Open Thread
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

At the end of the last thread, Bernie commented that WP "damned well better" give Spencer Ackerman space to respond to a column that quotes his Journo-List proposal that liberal "journalists" pick random conservatives and call them racists in order to counteract the Jeremiah Wright scandal (and thus give Barack Obama a media hand).

Then in the next comment he linked an Dinesh D'Souza column, with this intro:

"When you have no compass bearing other than power/money, then you can say pretty much anything at all and feel no responsibility towards truth or towards your fellow citizens."

I hereby challenge anyone to top that for irony.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

@Greg - Maddow did a segment last week that graphs the rise in incomes across various income levels during Republican administrations and during Democratic administrations. I'm hoping you can find some way to feature the segment this week. It's a revelation. As I noted last night, one needs to attend not merely to the aspects Rachel points out but also to the differences in disparity. I'm assuming, of course, that her staff have verified the data.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-why-elections-matter-one-gra

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

And one post of the meta variety to Greg...

I think you guys will have to put in place some rule or protocol to eliminate the troll device used by a relatively new poster where constant repetition plus double-spacing gobbles up much of each thread. If not, you are going to lose contributors and understandably so.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Benen points to the Gingrich piece as well...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025625.php

One difference of opinion I have with Steve here is on his notion that Gingrich is merely crazed or an idiot. I suspect Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing but is a sociopath.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

ps...should have linked Tomasky's piece from a few weeks ago making the case on Gingrich as sociopath... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/10/us-politics-newt-gingrich-sociopath

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Here is Bernie's comment about Newt's comments about the D'Souza column:

"And of course, there's nothing racist in that "Kenyan" thing there. It evokes all the same racial and cultural notions as "Canadian" or "Swiss"."

Typical sarcastic rhetorical device avoiding the need to directly engage facts.

So, where is the racism, where is the disregard for truth? Where is D'Souza misrepresenting any facts?

Obama's father in fact was a Kenyan anticolonialist economist, and Obama wrote a memoir called Dreams from My Father about his search for identity and direction and coming to terms with his father's legacy to him.

Frankly, nothing about D'Souza's thesis strikes me as terribly new or newly controversial. But it was D'Souza's column, not Newt, that makes a case that Obama is following a "dream" of Kenyan anticolonialism.

Is D'Souza's argument racist? Is D'Souza a racist? An Indian racist?

Or is it just that Newt is a racist for saying his explanation of Obama is persuasive?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"I suspect Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing but is a sociopath"

I suspect that Bernie, like Benen, can't actually address the substance of the D'Souza column.

Rather, Bernie again traffics in pure ad hominem rhetoric.

So lunacy or sociopathy are the only explanations for the D'Souza thesis. It should be a simple matter to show how it is factually false.

Feel free any time.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Sullivan points to some thoughts on this from, Tom Stoppard, a fellow I truly love...

"I have a spasm of envy for the person that was killed by a falling bookcase, as long as it doesn't happen prematurely... It would be a good way to go. You went when you were in a good frame of mind and you were doing something pleasant and interesting. A lot of people would say, 'I would rather have a heart attack at the height of sexual passion.' On the whole, I would prefer to be killed by a bookcase."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7981988/Desperate-Sir-Tom-Stoppard-seeks-death-by-bookcase.html

I don't mean to pass myself off as an authority here because I've personally experienced only one of these options (though heart fully stopped 12 minutes after arrival at hospital) and not the other. Being screwed nearly to death is not quite as romantic-sounding as one might imagine. But suffocating under a thousand pounds of books doesn't strike me as a pacific route out either. I think I'd opt for powder snow so deep that I don't know there's a tree coming.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Watching MTP. Two words come to mind about David Gregory: RELENTLESS IDIOCY.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Gee, wow what a shock, the soft-balls come out for Giuliani. MTP is such a joke.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Just getting ready to watch MTP myself. I also read D'Souza thesis in Forbes (can't wait for his latest book to come out). I heard that he took over as President at a small Christian college in NYC too. Good for him.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan - but he has big hair and cool shoes as befits celebrity.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

So Newt's drivel (and the d'Souza drivel it was derived from) impresses stupid people? Who could have guessed.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

David Axelrod's hair and suit seem strange.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1 at 9:22 AM


There is a certain aspect to these False Charges of Racism - it is not debate, it is not discussion, it is not respectful of Freedom of Speech.


What falsely calling someone a racist is - INTIMIDATION.


It is INTIMIDATION - it is an attack - and it is aimed at quieting a person - it is aimed at restricting the person's Freedom of Speech.


There is also an INTIMIDATION aspect to other people not attacked at that moment - it is saying that if one voices opposition to one of Obama's policies, you too could be FALSELY CHARGED WITH RACISM.


Of course, it is a witch trial, a witch hunt - a CRUCIBLE.


What is unbelievable is the democratic party - individuals - ALL OVER THE COUNTRY - ran head-strong into this line of attack.


It tells you something about the democratic party - they are desperate to create a line of attack - they are DESPERATE TO INTIMIDATE.

What about the OTHER DEMOCRATS - the ones who have stood by silently while these WITCH HUNTS have gone on and the False Charges Leveled ???

The democrats who have kept silent are just as guilty - we all know from the books we have read.

_________________________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The sacred sacred ground and memory of 9/11, not to be sullied, not to be minimized, not to be forgotten...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/11/i-said-ping-pong-balls/

Theme park, indeed.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

Do you even know what "anti-colonial" means? If you would actually read the FORBES COVER STORY, then you would see that it's a plausible explanation for everything Obama has done.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Same as it ever was. The GOP is WHOLLY OWNED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS:

* A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists *

The [finreg] bill’s passage in the House already seemed inevitable. But Mr. Boehner and his deputies told the Wall Street lobbyists and trade association leaders that by teaming up, they could still perhaps block its final passage or at least water it down.

“We need you to get out there and speak up against this,” Mr. Boehner said that December afternoon, according to three people familiar with his remarks, while also warning against cutting side deals with Democrats.

That sort of alliance — they won a few skirmishes, though they lost the war on the regulatory bill — is business as usual for Mr. Boehner, the House minority leader and would-be speaker if Republicans win the House in November. He maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.

They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns, provided him with rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign, which is soliciting checks of up to $37,800 each, the maximum allowed.

Some of the lobbyists readily acknowledge routinely seeking his office’s help — calling the congressman and his aides as often as several times a week — to advance their agenda in Washington. And in many cases, Mr. Boehner has helped them out.

As Democrats increasingly try to cast the Ohio congressman as the face of the Republican Party — President Obama mentioned his name eight times in a speech last week — and as Mr. Boehner becomes more visible, his ties to lobbyists, cultivated since he arrived here in 1991, are coming under attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/politics/12boehner.html

We don't need ANY more evidence that the Republican Party is only interested in preserving the bank accounts of the corporate ultra-elite.

IT IS ALL TOO OBVIOUS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Some here think that FORBES magazine is stupid AND racist.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

A revealing thing happened to the democrats this week: many democratic pundit got visibly angry - and practically lost their heads - when Paster Jones in Florida made the linkage to the mosque at Ground Zero.


Why did that happen ???


Because at first, when the left could hold up Pastor Jones - and characterize him to the country - as some redneck Southerner who is intolerant - a person who the liberals say should be scorned - then it was OK for the liberals to see the national media give him a platform - and it was OK for the liberals that he was out there - because they could attack him.

THEN THE PASTOR JONES MADE THE LINKAGE.


HHHMMM - anger from the left. All of a sudden the Pastor had a GOOD POINT - actually a GREAT POINT.


All of a sudden, the real prospect was raised that a compromise at the mosque could be reached - that the Pastor could be bringing that about.


All of a sudden, Obama looked bad, really horrible actually. Obama looked SIDELINED.


All of a sudden the ISSUE OF RESTRAINT AND TOLERANCE landed squarely on the Imam in New York -


And the liberals were boxed in - the question landed on the liberals - WHY aren't you calling for the Imam in New York to exercise RESTRAINT AND TOLERANCE.


Obama is weak on this issue - he has been sidelined - and his position is wrong.

The liberals had someone they could call a bigot - a racist - and then they were faced with a potential hero.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Back to MTP: Gregory just slammed Chuck Schummer on the politics of healthcare "The opposite has turned out to br true."

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Terrible performance by Axelrod this morning.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 11:14 AM


OK - I have not read the article - can you sum it up in 4 - 5 sentences and then tell us what Obama has done which is in line with that thinking "anti-colonial"


I will consider it.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"So Newt's drivel (and the d'Souza drivel it was derived from) impresses stupid people? Who could have guessed.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse "

What next, "slack-jawed" Buford again?


Jenn last night:

"Again, Brigade, since you and yourn seem unable to grasp the concept: insult does not equal refutation (or even refudiation). Calling me a poopy-head doesn't make me wrong; it just indicates that you can't state the counterfactual and lack the imagination and/or intellect to formulate a serious defense of your position.

It indicates that you are not a serious person, and as such, not to be taken seriously by anyone."

You're a funny lady.

Btw, your comprehension is on par with your reasoning.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Terrible performance by Axelrod this morning."

Whatever.

David Gregory's piece about "The Economy" was limited to the unemployment rate.

It's just gotcha non-journalism...

...for Democrats.

Get Rudy out there and it's soft-ball city.

Such a joke.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"So Newt's drivel (and the d'Souza drivel it was derived from) impresses stupid people? Who could have guessed.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse "

What next, "slack-jawed" Buford again?


Jenn last night:

"Again, Brigade, since you and yourn seem unable to grasp the concept: insult does not equal refutation (or even refudiation). Calling me a poopy-head doesn't make me wrong; it just indicates that you can't state the counterfactual and lack the imagination and/or intellect to formulate a serious defense of your position.

It indicates that you are not a serious person, and as such, not to be taken seriously by anyone."

You're a funny lady.

Btw, your comprehension is on par with your reasoning.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 11:16 AM


OK - now you have to answer - to what extent is the democratic party wholly owned and controlled by corporate interests ???


You can start with all the Free Trade deals which Bill Clinton pushed through and thereby DESTROYED every Main Street in America.


You can start with how Bill Clinton sold out to Wall Street, DEREGULATED DERIVATIVES, Regulation Q and REPEALED Glass Steagall.


You can review all the campaign contributions which go from corporate lobbyists to democrats in Washington.

YOU can review all the campaign contributions, including almost a million dollars that Obama got from BP, that Obama got from corporate interests.


What about all the deals Obama made with corporate interests around his health care bill - pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufactors - OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL WAS A SELL-OUT TO CORPORATIONS.

LETS BE HONEST HERE - this point is against BOTH PARTIES - it certainly is not a reason to vote for the democrats WHO SELL OUT AMERICA EVERYTIME.

_________________________________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1 10:26 AM


Obama is complicated - he has the Kenya thing going, with his father -

But Obama was adopted and raised in Indonesia - which made him an Indonesian citizen.


Growing up, Obama had two languages, Indonesian and English


Obama grew up a MUSLIM IN INDONESIA - and he can still sing all the Islamic songs with a "perfect Indonesian accent."


Obama even had his step-father's last name - and it is unclear when Obama switched last names.


The question is: does Obama have DIVIDED LOYALTIES ???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

David Gregory also pointed out the economics of Obamacare AND the disturbing trend of "Numbers of Families in Shelters Rise" (from 131,000 in 2007 to 170,000 last year).

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 11:16 AM


What is even more OBVIOUS is that if you are honest and look at the democrats - you will find that the democratic party is WORSE.

Pull out all the corporate contributions that Obama got as a Senator - a freshman Senator.

Pull out what Nancy Pelosi has been getting - and all the democratic committee chairman.


At this point, you are one-sided -


And you are being dishonest by not being even-handed and clear - the democrats are worse.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Wanna talk ECONOMY?

Here ya go.

* Washington Gridlock Could Put Brakes on Wall Street *

Greed isn't the only thing often seen as good on Wall Street: gridlock is too.

Gridlock in Washington, that is. The stock market tends to breathe easier when a gummed-up government lowers the prospect of new regulation or legislation that might crimp businesses. And one of the surest ways to jam the system is when party control is split between the White House and Congress.

[...]

But this election cycle may be different. Those past rallies were driven as much by looser fiscal and monetary policy. This year, the Federal Reserve has pushed short-term interest rates to zero, and additional policy easing isn't likely unless the economy weakens considerably. And gridlock may prevent the government from trying to goose the economy with the kind of additional stimulus that may buoy stocks. [...]

All told, two big worries plaguing the stock market — policy uncertainty and sluggish prospects for economic growth — aren't likely to dissipate if gridlock takes hold in Washington. If anything, the market may find itself stuck as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704505804575484163629994710.html

Every single day we find ourselves wrestling GOP-induced partisan GRIDLOCK is ANOTHER DAY THAT WE ARE INFLICTING SERIOUS DAMAGE TO OUR ECONOMY AND OUR COUNTRY.

If the GOP LOVES the FREE MARKET and wants our economy to expand, they will work with the Democrats.

But of course that won't happen because the Republican Party is committed to the failure of the United States.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

"The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal : "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
 
More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?
 
The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money."

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Poor clawrence.

Apparently it's not yet occured to him that the founding fathers were the original anti-colonialists.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

(cont.)

"Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.
 
Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times , however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.
 
One more anomaly: A few months ago NASA Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?"

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"You're a funny lady.

Btw, your comprehension is on par with your reasoning."

I take it you were impressed by Newtie's high-falutin' word salad, else you wouldn't feel prodded into responding.

Try this on for reading comprehension: anyone who falls for a deeply thought out thesis that begins with the words "what if" (as Newt's does), and then proceeds to advance wild notions without any supporting commentary as if they are established facts, as you have, is a stupid person.

That's not ad hominem, that's a logical interpretation of the facts at hand.

Suck on that, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Mosque at Ground Zero


Clearly - for all the people who say Obama went to Harvard - we haven't seen much from his from his supposed education there.


The point is CLEAR - the issue should NOT be centered on FREEDOM OF RELIGION - it should be centered on the caselaw.


The ISSUE IS WHETHER THERE IS A "COMPELLING INTEREST" EXCEPTION in this specific Ground Zero case.

Obama and the democrats (again) are doing a severe disservice to the nation by NOT centering the issue on "COMPELLING INTEREST."


The discussion could be dialed down a bit by the debate -


IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A PROPAGANDA TOOL a "compelling interest?"


IS the potential that the mosque at Ground Zero will be a RECRUITING TOOL in the Muslim world, is that that a "compelling interest?"

Is the sensitivity of the area a "COMPELLING INTEREST?"

Let us be specific here - we had 2700 people who were PULVERIZED and the cloud of smoke surrounded the area.


I had to put that graphically because the liberals are ignoring this point - body parts were PULVERIZED and landed in the surrounding blocks around Ground Zero -


To the families, the area is more than a place of attack - it is a final resting place because many of the bodies were either not found, or partially pulverized in the area - TO THE FAMILIES, THE AREA IS A CEMETARY.

The liberals are either tone-deaf, stupid, or completely ignoring this point.


It is unfortunate that this point has to be made and brought up - because so many liberals are ignoring it.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Apparently it's not yet occured to him that the founding fathers were the original anti-colonialists."

Isn't this special. Jenn can copy lame comments from Benen's lame commenters.

And just about the stupidest comment one could make about anti-colonialism.

British colonists who rebelled against Britain to found the U.S.A. were the forefathers of 20th century African anti-colonialists?

Too, too funny. You're cracking me up.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

WSJ Report guest:

"We were on the brink."

"At that point in time we needed to inject liquidity into the market"

"We're better off. We're not there yet."

That was from a CAPITALIST who is IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY. Those were his responses to the question "Is Obama anti-business."

Those in the know and those who are intellectually honest -- or don't have a political dog in the hunt -- think we are on the right path.

Anything else that you hear, predominantly coming from the pathetic political right is total horsepucky.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah, you're totally right about that.

See, the African anti-colonialists were BLACK, which totally renders that lofty about self-rule and the admirable ideal of self-governance and controlling your own destiny inoperable.

Thanks for pointing out the hidden dogwhistle, buford!

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 11:45 AM

The economy has not recovered from what Bill Clinton did.

Robert Reich - Clinton's Labor Secretary - said exactly that on television this week.


Bill Clinton's Free Trade deals have DESTROYED THIS ECONOMY.


Bill Clinton deregulated the derivatives markets - NO ONE ELSE - Bill Clinton's people were in control at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - NO ONE ELSE.


What planet are you on? YOU have nothing to say about the DAMAGE.


Be responsible.


If you are not even-handed, no one can take you seriously.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

@Greg

Re:Bernie's comments...
"think you guys will have to put in place some rule or protocol to eliminate the troll device used by a relatively new poster where constant repetition plus double-spacing gobbles up much of each thread."

This is EXACTLY what myself, lmsinca, and BG were pointing out several days ago.

Again my suggestion...simply have the techies put poster's names at the head of their comments. This is the egalitarian solution. It singles out no individual poster...I'm sure plenty of folks will scroll past me as well...it eliminates the need for you personally to make judgment calls about banning a poster, a difficult decision for sure...both ethically and business wise...we understand you need the hits.

This has worked well for me in reverse. When I return to a thread after being absent overnight...this morning is a great example...I simply go to the end of the thread and scroll back to where I left off..this morning I was able to see 4 consecutive posts...double spaced...and knowing this poster I realized they would add zero to the discussion. Coming back the other way I was able to pass them up. It would be nice if we simply had that opportunity from the start. No discrimination..everybody has the right to post...but not the right to waste our time. Bernie is correct!

Do any other posters have feelings about this problem and my or other potential solutions?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

quarteback1, she seems to think that the Battle at Bunker Hill is the same exact thing as genocide in Rwanda. It's sad that's how messed up their thinking is.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 11:52 AM


Yes, all that happened - I can add several more - just today there was a report that Obama was funding off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico - but the money was going to MEXICO and the Mexican oil company to drill in Mexican waters.

It is a question of Obama's DIVIDED LOYALTIES.

May I advance another theory - the CORPORATE INTERESTS which Ethan keeps talking about - and that I have stated have INFLUENCE OVER THE DEMOCRATS - those interests are MULTINATIONAL CORPORATONS.

The multinational corporations have funneled money into the democratic party - and then all of a sudden a bunch of strange things start to happen - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTS are put ahead of what appears to be the FOREIGN INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Well, all the details have to be examined - and "anti-colonial" is a dated concept.

At this point, in the Free Trade International Economy, the Multinational Corporations are the COLONIALISTS - and they are exploiting people.


These corporations state if you dont play by their rules, they are going to another country which will take their bad deals.


It is EXTORTION - INTIMIDATION ECONOMICS.


We hear these themes at Davos - the US better start playing these games or the mulitinationals are going to pull out of the US.

OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, AND BILL CLINTON, ARE IN BED WITH THESE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTS - and they have done vast damage to the American economy and to Americans finances.

It is treason - pure and simple.


.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You really don't know anything about 20th century anti-colonialism.

But you should at least come up with a new insult. "Buford" and racism? A bit played out.

Too bad ru isn't here to see you shredding conservative arguments with your witty put downs.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

You really don't know anything about 20th century anti-colonialism.

But you should at least come up with a new insult. "Buford" and racism? A bit played out.

Too bad ru isn't here to see you shredding conservative arguments with your witty put downs. It's so easy exposing liberals as intellectual lightweights and frauds.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...."Watching MTP. Two words come to mind about David Gregory: RELENTLESS IDIOCY."

Again as a former broadcaster I'm afraid I lost it this morning...I was actually screaming at the TV. How did Gregory ever get this position...how does he keep it.

As someone who has worked in Television news I can add however that it's not all Gregory. His producers are just as ignorant.

DG's first question to Axelrod..."you've done all this stuff..passed this legislation..where are the results?

Axelrod answered with specificity...emphasizing the President and his Administration are just as frustrated as the everyday American's who are suffering...but it was a monumental...as in HISTORIC hole the Bushies left this nation...HISTORIC as in having to go back 80 years to match this mess with the Great Depression.

Axelrod then added two economists..one R one D recently pointed out there would have been 3.5 million fewer jobs without the stimulus...and the economy did not sink all the way into a depression...in other words DG the Obama stimulus HAS HAD AN EFFECT!

And so what does DG come back with...the same freaking question even though it has been answered...and why? Because he is a closet right winger with an agenda. Not my take...it was because his producers had invested too much time in a graphic with two pages worth of quotes from stories. Axelrod had ALREADY ANSWERED the question but DG's producers were not about to waste all the work on their "setup" and the graphics...and so DG twisted and contorted until he could find a way to repeat the very question that had just been answered.

DG does not possess the late Tim Russert's talent. He barely listens, he is committed to whatever the producers/writers have laid out. He is terribly weak if there is a need to abandon the script and actually conduct an exploratory interview. In short I don't really believe it's a left/right thing as much as a massive lack of talent on DG's part!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but notice, quarterback, that you continue to avoid trying to defend Newt's entirely speculative drivel that you accepted as The One Real Truth.

I suspect there's a reason why you do that, and contrary to your belief, it's one that pretty much everyone here can see through.

I don't much care about your deep well of understanding about 20th century African colonialism because we've already plumbed its depths with "they're black" and honestly, Newt doesn't either. Just the invocation of Obama's father, a guy he met only once in his life after age 2, as a radical African anti-colonialist (read: angry black man plotting against white people) served Newt's purpose. Clearly you found it quite compelling, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

RU is here and quite frankly Q.B. it is far less satisfying to watch Jenn shred you...you are a lightweight...it would be far more pleasurable to watch her shred Mr if x=y and z is q then you multiply q x y you get zq. LMAO!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I haven't read many of STR's comments, but they strike me as not too different from the standard fare of Ethan, Liam, and "News Reference," when it was around, all of whom tend to post repetitive ideological declamations and denunciations of the other side.

No real opinion on reformatting, although I suppose I could live with seeing Liam's name before starting to read another of his pointless bleats.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I think Newt must be suffering from permanent brain trauma.

He is easily stunned, as in his frequent use of the term "stunning".
Newt now has been "stunned" by the claim that President Obama thinks like "a post colonial Kenyan".

The claim, that gave Newt a fresh Concussion, was made by this guy:
Dinesh D'Souza
Born April 25, 1961 (1961-04-25) (age 49)
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

You have to love how easily Newt can be Stunned, by a claim made by a Guy actually born in Post Colonial India.
Poor Old Newt; He fell for the ravings of India's version of another foreign born Right Wing Lunatic; Orly Taitz.


Dinesh D'Souza
Born April 25, 1961 (1961-04-25) (age 49)
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India


Orly Taitz in 2008
Born August 30, 1960 (1960-08-30) (age 50)
Kishinev, Moldavian SSR, USSR[1]

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

Why is Newt siding with Foreign born agitators? and going against the wishes of General Petraeus, and Secretary Of Defense, Gates?
Is it because he has been "stunned" so many times, by his foreign born agitators associates, that he has now become their subservient and willing puppet?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

RUK, that's exactly right.

Then you flip to Giuliani and it's 60 mph softballs lobbed right down the middle.

I was never a big Russert fan, though I respected him as a journalist.

But it is abundantly clear that David Gregory is nothing more than a buffoon who is spoon-fed the latest right wing meme of the day.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I haven't read many of STR's comments, but they strike me as not too different from the standard fare of Ethan, Liam, and "News Reference," when it was around, all of whom tend to post repetitive ideological declamations and denunciations of the other side.

No real opinion on reformatting, although I suppose I could live with seeing Liam's name before starting to read another of his pointless bleats.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:25 PM
.......................

Oh Lord!!!

You admit that you have not read his ravings, but yet you say they "strike you as"....

The Toon Town Lawyer Strikes again. What An Ultra Maroon!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

#9/12teabaggerrallyfail

@tpm

The crowd is downright tiny by comparison to those past events. Sure, there are several thousand people here. But it's nowhere near the size of last year's 9/12 crowd. If FreedomWorks wanted a repeat of last year's traffic-halting protest, so far it looks like they've failed.

[...]

Diversity update: Minorities on stage? About five. Minorities spotted in the small crowd? None.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/tea-partys-912-rally-looking-much-much-smaller-than-last-years.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey Clawrence,

Have you recovered from your attack of The Vapors, when you fretted about how it looked like "BET is taking over" the Glen Beck, DC rally?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"I can't help but notice, quarterback, that you continue to avoid trying to defend Newt's entirely speculative drivel that you accepted as The One Real Truth."

I can't help but notice that you've not made one substantive point.

If your read with comprehension rather than just reacting ideologically, you'd have noticed I didn't take a position about the merits of the D'Souza theory. I asked questions about the assumption that it is racist, and asked where it is factually wrong, since the charge was made that it shows both racism (by a native of India, no less) and disregard for truth.

And, of course, you have no response other than your typical sneers and name calling.

It's hilarious, Jenn, and I hope you keep up your litany. Just last night you were pontificating about name calling versus factual arguments and fancying yourself some sort of forensic model.

Now you're confirming with each new post what a joke that was.

Anyone who is the point D'Souza is making is undercut by the American Revolution is hopelessly un- or miseducated. And, in your case, a hopeless ideologue as well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

This really surprises me.

"The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said on Sunday that he was prepared to vote in favor of legislation that would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans if Democrats insisted on continuing the lower rates only for families earning less than $250,000 a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/us/politics/13cong.html

Any have an explanation?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

TRAPPED. LIKE RATS.

The top Republican in the U.S. House said Sunday he would vote for extending tax cuts to all but the wealthiest Americans, if that's the only option available.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, told the CBS program "Face the Nation" that he wants the tax cuts from the Bush administration extended to everyone.

However, if President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats push through their plan to extend the tax cuts to Americans earning less than $250,000 a year while restoring higher tax rates on others, Boehner said he would vote for it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/12/boehner-says-hed-vote-for-democratic-tax-proposal/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan....Again at the risk of peeving our conservative friends...again as a former journalist...or who is the moron who would wish to say everybody but a fascist is a journOlist LOL...a former journOlist :-) I truly do admire Maddow. Not just because she is perhaps the leading on air voice for progressives...but because she's one of the last pundits who even makes an attempt at honest discussion. She makes no attempt to hide her political beliefs...progressive...but tries to at least attempt honest journalism...and when she does make a mistake...who is perfect? she actually comes back the next night and corrects herself. Can you IMAGINE anybody on Faux admitting they're right wingers...much less come back and admit their frequent mistakes.

The promos for the MSNBC hosts pretty much sum it up...Chris Matthews braying about how he loves to play "gotcha" with his interviews...literally bragging about his ability to roast someone...(perhaps he is from the Scott C school of interviewing)
Tamron Hall...loves to pull out that information from somebody holding it back....Rachel Maddow...I strive for fairness...my parents raised me to be fair..and I attempt to do that whether I agree with my guest or not. It's important to me that my guests feel they were treated fairly.

But what started this rant Ethan...was my point about D.G.'s inflexibility and lack of listening skills. EVERY broadcaster goes into an interview backed by a list of questions and producers standing by with video/graphics to put on the screen for the "expected" answers. Rachel actually LISTENS...and will go where the interview leads her...not always glued to the preplanned script of her producers. The Rand Paul interview is an excellent example.

BTW Egomaniac Chris Matthews most famous "gotcha" moment turned Michelle Bachmann into a star. Great job Chris!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who thinks . . ."

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

* Obama's plan to extend some tax cuts may be gaining traction *

[...]

Austan Goolsbee, the new head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Boehner's comment showed a growing realization that action is needed on the issue of whether to extend the tax cuts.

"If he's truly saying that we can, as the president called for, get a broad consensus to extend the middle-class tax cuts, we should do it," Goolsbee said on the ABC program "This Week."

A broad consensus exists for a "middle ground" approach "that Democrats and Republicans, business people and workers can agree on to get ... the economy growing faster," Goolsbee said.

At the same time, Goolsbee insisted Obama was not open to an extensive negotiation over the tax cut extension issue.

"He said we will be open for discussion," Goolsbee said of Obama, noting "it was literally in a sentence where he said we should all be able to agree that what would give some certainty to the economy now would be extending the middle class tax cuts permanently."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/12/tax.cuts/index.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne & Ethan...Yeah I'm surprised that Boehner would concede in advance. Perhaps he's read the tea leaves..obviously the American people..by a significant plurality are exactly for doing what he claims he is now ready to vote to pass.

I think the R's realize this election is theirs to lose...perhaps Boehner wishes to make sure they don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"RU is here and quite frankly Q.B. it is far less satisfying to watch Jenn shred you...you are a lightweight...it would be far more pleasurable to watch her shred Mr if x=y and z is q then you multiply q x y you get zq. LMAO!"

That means so much coming from you.

But I think we at last have you pinned down now as to what you consider quality argument: calling someone "stupid" and "Buford" (and racist) shreds their arguments.

Got it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"Any have an explanation?"

Well, it's obvious if you've been paying any attention to the wingnuts on this board: Boehnor is trying to gin up class warfare, he hates the free-market system, and is some sort of pinko fascist commie plant bent on destroying our economy.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

NEWT, THE BIRTHER, For President.

NEWT, WHO PUTS OUR TROOPS LIVES IN GREATER DANGER, for President.

NEWT: THE SERIAL ADULTERER, FAMILY VALUES MAN, for President.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

NEWT, THE HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHER'S BOY TOY, for President.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

I agree re: the polling but it sure looked (looks?) like the Dems are going to cave on Plutocrat Tax Relief. It seems Agent Orange could have just stood aside and let the Republicrats do all the dirty work for him. Seems strange to me.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 12, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

@Liam....can you imagine Newt ACTUALLY running for President. No opposition research required...it's all right out there in the open..and you were just getting started.

I think one of the most interesting political stories about all of this is how it all eventually plays out. Newt..the megalomaniac has obviously sold his soul to the devil for he must perceive as his final chance at the Oval Office. His positions have moved to the right of Attila the Hun or Mussolini...no hyperbole intended her after his most recent despicable use of 9/11 suffering to further his agenda.

But what happens when the spit really begins flying. IF he runs will his fellow R's simply obliterate him...they have ample ammunition...or will they try to take him out gently? What if he actually secured their nomination. We would all be out singing in the streets. He may be the ONLY candidate who would give us a better lock on the W.H. than even Sister Sarah.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Do any other posters have feelings about this problem and my or other potential solutions?
------------------------------------
Putting the posters name at the top of the posts is one way to scroll past unnecessary postings. The other way is to put the newest posts at the top, and when you read the blog, you start at the bottom. I know that is possible because the Fix used that method.

However, it didn't work completely. One Fix'er kept track of the number of lines posted on a daily basis. STRF usually accounted for 70% of the lines, and Fix used to get 200-300 posts per thread. STRF can really put out the spam when he gets ramped up.

He was warned numerous time by the blog owner, Chris Cillizza and his handle was blocked on a daily basis. STRF would change his handle to another and keep on spamming.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Newt would make a better President than Obama.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Boehner can read the polls. He has not survived this long, without being able to do that.

He knows that renewing Bush Tax Cuts for Fat Cats is a loser. He does not want to hand Democrats that issue, leading into the election.

It could not be any clearer why he said what he said. The trick is now, to make him put up, and act on it, before the election, because after the election, he will never do it. He probably is also thinking that if he takes the issue away from Democrats leading into the election, he will not really be giving in, because the Senate Republicans will block any bill that eliminates the Tax Cuts For Billionaires.

I am off to see if the Bears look any better on my new HD set. I am afraid that they will have a poor season, but never the less: Da Bears!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence we already understand. You suffer from a terminal case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. You no longer have the ability to think critically.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Economic trivia questions for liberals:

What number or percentage of American jobs are provided by businesses whose taxes will be raised under the Obama tax increase?

How many jobs depend on discretionary spending of "wealthy" taxpayers whose taxes will be increased?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Boehner also knows that Obama has said that he will refuse to compromise on this.

And that means a political fight over tax cuts for the rich.

A fight that the GOP will/would lose handily, and maybe even give the Dems the break they need going into November.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Liam....good luck to your Bears. Alas here in Tampa we are blacked out...the first of about six blackouts we expect this season.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Now you want us to answer questions that by your own definition are trivial?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7

Re Newt: He is now trying to make the case for President Obama having been influnced greatly by his absent Kenyan father.
Yet Newt was not raised by his real father either. So we can nail him on that specious claim.

I am amazed at how much Newt has gone all in with the Far Right Hate Mongers.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 12:10 PM


The democrats are trying to come up with a new insult - that is why they keep on saying "Islamaphobia - phobes"


THAT is a phoney way to say "racist"


The democrats are not about "we have policy differences"


Instead, the democrats are all about "you are bad people."


It is a betrayal of the commitment to bipartisanship and compromise.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 12:04 PM


You keep on saying you are not reading my comments - but you are.


It is like forbidden candy to you - you can not help yourself.


And secretly you wish I would go away because you think you might start agreeing with me.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

@Liam...."I am amazed at how much Newt has gone all in with the Far Right Hate Mongers."

Agreed Liam. Newt is an educated man...what a history professor..and so for him to be spewing this BS is all the more despicable because he knows better.

But given his megalomania I understand the motivation...but still he is establishing a body of evidence that will make him virtually unelectable in a general election.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

No, rukidding7, the former Speaker of the House WOULD make a better President. Hell, most people would rather have Bush43 back as President.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

That is a lie - the liberal cabal had 80% of the postings

Please take your hostility elsewhere.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

STRF

Would you mind if Planned Parenthood used you picture, as their Poster Child, for the benefits of Birth Control?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bernie, thanks for the tip about the troll technique.

I'll bring this up with the powers that be first thing tomorrow AM.

Posted by: sargegreg | September 12, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I just once want to hear Obama say that there are exceptions to Freedom of Religion in the caselaw.


I just once want to hear the great Harvard Law student say that the caselaw clearly states "compelling interest."


Then I would like to hear Obama speak on why his position overcomes that test.


The REASON is that Obama really does NOT have the caselaw behind him.


Obama is being deceptive to the American People - so he can side with the muslims against honest hard-working Americans.


This is why people believe Obama has divided loyalties - this is why people do NOT TRUST Obama.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

That is a lie - the liberal cabal had 80% of the postings

Please take your hostility elsewhere.
-----------------------------------------
You guys should ask Greg to talk to Chris Cillizza about the curse of 37th&OStreet (STRF).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

@Greg - Yeah, I think it warrants the attention.

Support the Obama tax cuts!

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse


No, rukidding7, the former Speaker of the House WOULD make a better President. Hell, most people would rather have Bush43 back as President.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 1:19 PM
.................

Nice salute to the Comedy Stylings of Steven Colbert.

So, have you fully recovered from your fit of Paranoia, about BET taking over the Glen Beck DC rally?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

That is a lie - the liberal cabal had 80% of the postings

Please take your hostility elsewhere.
-----------------------------------------


_________________________________

Anyone can look at the archives and see you are lying - the evidence is sitting right there.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 12:04 PM


If a discussion is nothing but an echo chamber - then how is ANYONE adding anything to "the discussion?"


Different points of view are what make America great.

It is disturbing that you are seeking ways to shut down other points of view.

Big difference from the democratic platform in 2008 - promising bipartisanship for the following 4 years.


May I advance that you become a better person when you read opposing views - and if you just read the same liberal stuff, you gain nothing.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"...you'd have noticed I didn't take a position about the merits of the D'Souza theory."

Aside from citing my observation on it with a poor attempt at derision? In other words, according to you, you have not expressed an opinion on the merits of the D'Souza "theory" (used very loosely) by responding to a comment I made about it; you just cited my observation of it as an opening for making insults.

Ok, thanks for clarifying for us that you're a troll, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Bernielatham

Obama isn't cutting any taxes, he is leaving them the same for some people.


Is that the democratic version of a tax cut?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

STRF

Would you mind if Planned Parenthood used you picture, as their Poster Child, for the benefits of Birth Control?

It would save a lot of Parents from having to go through what your parents had to endure,

Posted by: Liam-still | September 12, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 11:52 AM

I can see that you are saying that Obama's actions do not make sense - because you believe that an American President should act in ways that are in the interests of the American People.

And somehow you are trying to make sense of it.


But the truth is the Multinational Corporations have bought and paid for the democratic party. Bill Clinton's Free Trade deals are a part of that. Did those Free Trade deals help Americans?


Obama and the democrats tell you one set of things to get elected - and they do a set of things which is completely different.

At least with the Republicans its more like what you see is what you get.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg and Rukidding7

Let's be serious - is the complaint more one of format or one of CONTENT ?

Clearly, I do not believe Rukidding would be complaining if the posts were full of pro-Obama fawning.


There is a hostility here toward opposing views - and that is just wrong.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Aside from citing my observation on it with a poor attempt at derision? In other words, according to you, you have not expressed an opinion on the merits of the D'Souza "theory" (used very loosely) by responding to a comment I made about it; you just cited my observation of it as an opening for making insults."

Try saying something intelligible next time. Everyone can read the comments above. Calling someone stupid isn't an observation. And, no, pointing out your lack of substance isn't commenting on the merit's of D'Souza's questions.

"Ok, thanks for clarifying for us that you're a troll, buford."

Says the flake whose "observation" was:

"So Newt's drivel (and the d'Souza drivel it was derived from) impresses stupid people? Who could have guessed."

Please, keep digging your hole. Nothing I like more than a liberal poser who has that special zeal for grinding the shards of her credibility into dust.

Or you could take your shot at pointing out the factual misrepresentations in the D'Souza piece and showing how it is racist.

Yeah, right, like you are up to that. But hey at least you are ru's heroine of the week!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

No takers for these questions? They seem pretty important for people who want to raise taxes on "the wealthy."

Economic trivia questions for liberals:

What number or percentage of American jobs are provided by businesses whose taxes will be raised under the Obama tax increase?

How many jobs depend on discretionary spending of "wealthy" taxpayers whose taxes will be increased?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see the liberals start to defend themselves more on the mosque.

My feeling is many democrats are seeking to defend Obama - more than they think the mosque should be there.

So already, there is a partisan element to this debate.

There are exceptions to the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion - once the liberals start to talk about that, they lose.


How about the boundaries of the ash cloud being the boundaries? One can argue that that is the area in which the ashes of the innocent victims fell.


The liberals don't like mentioning that one of the planes' landing gear fell on this building which the mosque is proposed.


Astonishing: That Obama would allow himself to be cast in a pro-muslim light on such an issue. This is clearly a political mistake - it plays into everyone who says Obama isn't really American - that Obama still has loyalties from his childhood as a MUSLIM IN INDONESIA.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Teabaggers on Parade:

OUST THE MARXIST USURPER!
http://twitpic.com/2ntcvz

FUMIGATE THE WHITE HOUSE
http://twitpic.com/2nsold

YOUR'E NOT OUR PRESIDENT
YOUR'E A HOAX A FRAUD, A LIAR!
RACIST
http://twitpic.com/2ns3jg

HOPE AND CHANGE PROMISSED
HOAX AND CHAINS DELIVERED
http://twitpic.com/2ns2tv

Classy bunch, eh?

Spelling/punctuation errors and all...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

@Greg - Yeah, I think it warrants the attention.

Support the Obama tax cuts!

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

When the Pastor made the linkage - and said he wanted to negotiate with the New York Imam on the mosque at Ground Zero, All of a sudden, Obama looked bad, really horrible actually. Obama looked SIDELINED.


All of a sudden the ISSUE OF RESTRAINT AND TOLERANCE landed squarely on the Imam in New York -


And the liberals were boxed in - the question landed on the liberals - WHY aren't you calling for the Imam in New York to exercise RESTRAINT AND TOLERANCE.


Obama is weak on this issue - he has been sidelined - and his position is wrong.

The liberals had someone they could call a bigot - a racist - and then they were faced with a potential hero.


People started to ask themselves - WHY isn't Obama taking the lead on this COMPROMISE???


Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what Obama was elected to do.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro live tweeting:

this crowd is very very white. Almost completely white in fact. This wouldn't be confused for an MLK day march that's for sure.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/interactive/2010/09/twitter-wire.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"“it would be far more pleasurable to watch her shred Mr if x=y and z is q then you multiply q x y you get zq.”

If you are referring to me, you should note that Jenn seems reluctant to engage me. I twice asked her yesterday which "Randian notions" she was referring to in yesterdays post, but so far she has failed to specify anything.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

A few of the posters here are actually asking for the blog to be more of an "echo-chamber" for one set of views.

Amazingly, these people are saying that an "echo-chamber" is more of a discussion than one that involves opposing views.

The left still have the right FAR outnumbered - both in number of posters and the number of comments.


So what is the problem? It seems some want to stamp out an opposing view.


I have to point out as well - there are several here on the left who have made postings which are EXTREMELY HOSTILE -


That does not foster civil discussion.

What we have here is the right exercising restraint - and not responding to every hostile comment by the left.

This is a slippery slope because hostile comments usually lead to a returned hostile comment.

Again - we are here and the left is looking for censorship - and it is not about format - it is about CONTENT.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

First, bright boy, I've already elucidated why it's drivel; that occured way upthread when you were still in your bob-n-weave posture w/r/t "having expressed no opinion on the merits of D'Souza's case."

D'Souza's "case" rests on this: Obama's just like the father he never knew.

That's the sum of D'Souza's "case". No explanation or supporting evidence that Obama somehow acquired the same radical anti-colonial ideology through genetic osmosis, though given the facts - that Obama spent a day or several days with his father one time once he was over the age of two - that's the only explanation. No, D'Souza simply asserts it is so.

There's no basis for anything there. It's a foundation of sand, based solely on an implausible D'Souza speculation.

Ergo, "drivel". Devoid of logic, reason or meaning because all fruit of the poison vine is tainted.

There's no reason for trying to moor an argument to such a weak piling, UNLESS just making the association itself is the object. D'Souza (and Newt) aren't trying to appeal to anyone who knows the particulars about Obama, his father, or their relationship with this - people who know those particulars hear this and say, "is this guy stupid or crazy to be peddling that weak-a** tea?" - they're appealing to people who DON'T know the particulars, people for whom "radical African anti-colonialist" will invoke the desired connection to "angry black man plotting against white people."

You and yours make a cottage industry out of pretending it ain't so, and perhaps you, buford, are dumb enough that you actually BELIEVE it ain't so...but Newt and D'Souza know that it is. Otherwise they wouldn't routinely contort their implausible speculations into full-blown theoretical sandcastles. How do I know this? Because I'm not dumb as perhaps you may be, buford. I know from personal experience that people who have a point to make about factual reality refer to that factual reality when making their point. They don't build on speculation. People who build on speculation do so because they're trying to demonstrate something they can't demonstrate from factual reality, i.e., they have an agenda and often it has little or nothing to do with reality. When this is the case, as it is with D'Souza and Newt, the smart person says, "so, why'd they pick THAT particular foundation of sand to build their little fantasy on?"

Apparently, buford, this is a question you never ask, perhaps because you're not a very smart person, for all your confidence in your rapier-like wit and razor-sharp intellect.

So to sum up: drivel, built on idle speculation. For a purpose. Which you either pretend to be too dumb to grasp, or actually are too dumb to grasp; the first scenario actually being the most tragic for its willfulness. But in the end, not really mattering all that much.

Any questions, buford?

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich wants us to thing badly of Obama's father for his ... get this... "philandering"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/how_long_not_long.php?ref=fpblg

Psychopathology, a study in.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

* Newt Gingrich rips Obama as ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial’ thinker *

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

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

“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” he added. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”

The idea that Obama is fundamentally foreign because of his Kenyan father is a view most closely associated with individuals known as “birthers,” who assert against the evidence that Obama was secretly born or raised in Kenya, rather than Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible to be — and illegitimate as — president.

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

Y-I-K-E-S!

Lunatic Alert!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 1:54 PM


The discussion on the stimulus is closely linked to the discussion on the tax rates.

Clearly, what everyone was saying about the stimulus at the time - that the democrats were diverting much of the money to democratic interest groups and democratic pet projects - with little chance of job growth - all that was true then and true now.

Obama and the democrats - instead of "doing it right" - responded to the criticism with a bunch of lies - centered around a website that would "instantly track the job creation."


Have we forgotten about that?


The democrats treated the stimulus as a piggy bank - a chance for their pet projects to be funded - not as a chance to create SOUND ECONOMIC GROWTH.


The American People were ROBBED - they gave the money, incurred the debt - and the democrats did NOT take the stimulus seriously - they ROBBED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Today there are reports about Obama's green jobs - almost $100 Billion of the stimulus - much of it in projects that are not working as they wanted. NO KIDDING.

I'll go on later with some more thoughts - the BEST TAX STRUCTURE FOR JOB CREATION -

And also - there is a valid question - WHAT should a stimulus look like in a Free Trade Economy ?? Clearly there has been leakage to other nations - Obama has been creating jobs in China.

The fact that we have a Free Trade Economy means that Job Creation Incentives Through Tax Incentives are probably a better route than SPENDING.


But tell that to the democrats and Obama - you will get a blank stare.


.
.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Yep, anything that begins with "What if..." is clearly a deeply serious, authoritative account, not "drivel."

More fun-n-games: Obama is both fundamentally out-of-touch while at the same time being a genius capable of running a "con" that put him into the White House.

"...there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”

But Newtie's clearly NOT saying that himself, no siree, because then he might be asked to EXPLAIN what he means when he says Obama is "factually insane." He's just SUGGESTING that at some point someone else should stand up and say it, because...uh...maybe they'll be able to explain what they mean by that, because Newt sure as heck can't. He's just SUGGESTING it, just putting it out there, I'm sure for no real reason.

You can see why this type of thing appeals to buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Is the name "Buford" supposed to be an insult?  If so, why?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Gingrich wants us to thing badly of Obama's father for his ... get this... "philandering""

Typical Bernie Latham dishonesty. At no point did Gingrich ever mention Obama's father's philandering at all, much less did he encourage anyone to think badly of Obama's father because of it.

Bernie is quite simply shameless.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

buford is not capitalized.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Jenn:

Yesterday you were dismissive of "Randian notions" that some people here allegedly maintain. What notions specifically were you talking about?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ok, thanks, it makes me even more curious why "buford" is supposed to be an insult (I might not be understanding it's meaning and it could mean something else, but insult seems to fit contextually)?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Scott as opposed to Newt. You are a freaking joke gotcha boy!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Any questions, buford?"

Um, yeah, just as soon as I firm up my slack jaw in the face of that compelling marshalling of facts dealing with the substance of the D'Souza column.

Oh, wait, you actually don't do that. You just said:

"D'Souza's "case" rests on this: Obama's just like the father he never knew.

That's the sum of D'Souza's "case". No explanation or supporting evidence that Obama somehow acquired the same radical anti-colonial ideology through genetic osmosis, though given the facts - that Obama spent a day or several days with his father one time once he was over the age of two - that's the only explanation. No, D'Souza simply asserts it is so"

You obviously have not read the D'Souza column, or you're just dishonest and hoping others won't, since what you said plainly is untrue. D'Souza doesn't claim Obama learned anti-colonialist socialism at his father's knee. He makes a much more nuanced case, persuasive or not, based on facts such as Obama's positions, his own words (like "Dreams from My Father"), and an apparently influential paper his father wrote (surely you don't doubt Obama has read it?).

Now, I find all this interesting and having some ring of truth, although I'm not sure how important it is or compelling as a "narrow" explanation it is. It probably makes most sense as part of a larger narrative, which would account for the fact that, for example, the anti-Western, anti-colonial critiques D'Souza is talking about have been quite popular in American universities since at least the 1970s. And D'Souza, in fairness, while sketching out this theory in a brief column rather than a book, notes, for example, that Obama was taught by Edward Said at Columbia. Maybe, just maybe, Obama could have been drawn to ideas like those of his father. Dreams of My Father, remember?

You kinda overlook inconvenient facts like that, don't you, given how you just claim D'Souza cites no facts at all? D'Souza's argument is rather more fact-based and complex than your absurd caricature. Which you'll know by now if you've bothered to read it, after misrepresenting it.

"D'Souza (and Newt) aren't trying to appeal to anyone who knows the particulars about Obama, his father, or their relationship with this - people who know those particulars hear this and say, "is this guy stupid or crazy to be peddling that weak-a** tea?" - they're appealing to people who DON'T know the particulars, people for whom "radical African anti-colonialist" will invoke the desired connection to "angry black man plotting against white people.""

Well, there you go again, dull girl.

If you'd actually read D'Souza you'd know he is pretty clear about Obama's lack of relationship with his father. And he discusses Dreams from My Father, which you could say is about that very topic. So, how is it that he is trying to appeal to people ignorant of those facts, when he openly addresses them?

Kind of goofed again, there, didn't you?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Should say Dreams FROM my Father, of course.


Tell us, Jenn, is Dinesh D'Souza a white racist?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Yeah Scott as opposed to Newt. You are a freaking joke gotcha boy!!!"

I don't understand you. Do you really find it acceptable that Bernie has posted what is, indisputably, a lie? Why? Is it Gingrich's politics that make it acceptable to lie about him, or is it Bernie's politics that make it OK for him to lie?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I've read D'Souza. Everything he said boils down to "Obama's just like his dad, because I say so." Sure, it's all fancied up with speculations. But at basis, that's what it all boils down to. D'Souza spends a lot of time on Obama's father and his failings, and goes from that to "Obama believes the same thing," with nothing to support it.

And people like you, buford, gobble it down.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. You are truly pathetic!!!

"He makes a much more nuanced case, persuasive or not, based on facts such as Obama's positions, his own words (like "Dreams from My Father"),"

This has become your M.O. I say I AM NOT A SOCIALIST..you come back with YOUR INTERPRETATION that because YOU say so I'm a socialist. No wonder that article would interest you. It's freaking irrelevant what Obama says because you and your ilk are going to INTERPRET it for him. Why should anybody even bother to post here when you..sanctimonious know it all...can tell us all what WE ARE THINKING..EVEN IF OUR COMMENTS SAY SPECIFICALLY THE OPPOSITE.

And so if I were to respond to you in true Q.B. fashion I could interpret your remarks..because they clearly show you to be a fascist, religious bigot, theocratic, looney tune.

Don't bother to respond because as I said..I'm using your and D'Souza's M.O. of divining what you are thinking...I already know what you think and so you don't need to waste your time...I know your thoughts better than you do...isn't that the way it works?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Truth and lies mean something different to the Left than to anyone else. They mean only whatever advances or sets back the cause.

Whatever a Bernie says is true, and whatever a Newt says is a lie.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Scott...actually it's neither of your choices...it's because unlike you I don't split hairs. As Jenn pointed out Gingrich is simply using the old Fox school of journalism trick. I accept your point that Gingrich didn't SAY that...but really...saying that perhaps that is the case...well it's kind of like saying...according to Q.B. I hear Scott is a wife beater. I haven't called you a wife beater have I? But IMHO it would be pretty despicable of me to even bring it up to begin with...in fact in all honesty I don't even feel comfortable using it as an example...because clearly I have no reason whatsoever to suspect you are a wife beater...just as Gingich has no reason to believe half the crap he is now spewing.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama:

"When these same Republicans –- including Mr. Boehner –- were in charge, the number of earmarks and pet projects went up, not down."

PolitiFact: MOSTLY TRUE

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

We asked vice president Steve Ellis whether earmarks went up, not down, under the Republican-controlled Congresses.

"Totally true," Ellis said. "Certainly under the Republicans there was a big rise in earmarks." The high mark was fiscal 2005, the last fiscal year before Democrats won control, when Congress passed bills with approximately 16,000 earmarks, Ellis said.

We were able to find other sources that agreed with Ellis. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service documented increasing earmarks in different parts of appropriations bills in its report Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005.

The conservative Heritage Foundation included a striking chart on earmarks in its Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010 report. It reported a slightly different number of earmarks, at approximately 14,000 earmarks in 2005. But that was the largest number of earmarks between 1991 and 2010, and a significant increase from 1994, when there were fewer than 2,000.

We asked Ellis why earmarks increased so steadily during the years Republicans controlled Congress, and he said there were several factors at work. Prior to Republican control, Ellis said, Democrats reserved earmarks for committee chairman and other powerful leaders. Under Republicans, more rank-and-file members of Congress were allowed to insert earmarks into bills. The Republicans allowed Democrats to insert earmarks as well, so Democrats were not so quick to criticize what the Republicans were doing, he said. Finally, special interests got better at lobbying members of Congress, using new technology like cell phones and Blackberrys to communicate with members as legislation was being put together.

[...]

Obama said that "When these same Republicans – including Mr. Boehner – were in charge, the number of earmarks and pet projects went up, not down." Earmarks increased dramatically between 1995 and 2006, so we find Obama's statement that earmarks went up, not down, to be correct. But he also singles out Boehner by name, when Boehner didn't take any earmarks and wasn't in leadership for most of those years. So we rate Obama's statement Mostly True.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/09/barack-obama/obama-says-republican-congresses-used-lots-earmark/

Republicans LOVE THEM SOME BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

BTW...Looking at B.O.'s record versus what he's actually done. According to the R's he's taken a hard turn to the left that the voters didn't expect. What a load!!!!

He crafted an HCR policy that included PRIVATE insurance companies...not the Government. Despite the fact that poll after poll showed that a plurality of our nation preferred a single payer/Medicare for all solution...despite the fact that B.O. promised a Public Option during the campaign...somehow in the lalaland that the wack jobs on the right reside in currently...Obama made a hard turn to the left by....dumping anything progressives wanted to see as a part of HCR for a PRIVATE insurance solution.

When you start from a position to the right of Mussolini...yes Obama looks like a real liberal.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"I've read D'Souza. Everything he said boils down to "Obama's just like his dad, because I say so." Sure, it's all fancied up with speculations. But at basis, that's what it all boils down to."

So let's review. Now you're admitting that what you said before -- that D'Souza gives "No explanation or supporting evidence" -- was untrue.

But you still can't address any of his facts or his argument with, what was the term you were using before . . . oh yes, "counterfactuals." Your conclusory assertion that it "all boils down" to nothing is a nonargument. It's just your blowhard opinion, supported by nothing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Scott...I feel for you because the R's have become the party of know nothings. The intellectuals on your side...only posters here representing that Kevin W and perhaps Brigade..realize that.

Stop defending the idiots...stick up for the people on your side with some integrity...again Dr. Ron Paul. I certainly don't agree with Dr. Paul's domestic policy thoughts but I am in complete agreement with his foreign policy views.

But regardless of agreement/disagreement with his views...Ron Paul may be the last R standing who hasn't pandered, who has remained consistent, and who has kept his dignity and integrity.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Speculations aren't evidence, buford. They're speculations.

D'Souza pretends that because Obama's dad was x y and z, and said a, b, and c, and Obama himself recounted that his dad said b, then Obama is an ideological clone of his dad. There's nothing connecting the conclusion to any of the "facts" offered; there are some "could it be" type statements, but it's essentially just D'Souza blathering on about how "Obama's just like his dad, because I say so." There's no "there" there. It's all just fancified D'Souza OPINION.

Which we all know is the same as incontravertible evidence for you and yours, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 3:18 PM


A democrat NEVER met an earmark he didn't like.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Record earmarks under the GOP.

14,000 in 2005. Says Heritage.

GOP = Big Govt + Big Spender!

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/09/barack-obama/obama-says-republican-congresses-used-lots-earmark/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk 3:31 PM


You are leaving out that Obama was raised in Indonesia - speaks Indonesian - was schooled in Islamic schools - knows how to sing Islamic songs like you know Christmas carols.


Let's be serious here.


Obama thought we had 57 States- because he was confused with the 57 Islamic states.


The American People KNEW all this about Obama - and still voted for him - so you can't say the people who voted for Obama are racist..... sorry I meant islamaphobic - isolamphobia - islamabs.


The QUESTION is whether Obama has divided loyalties.

IN peacetime, divided loyalties may be OK if US national security is properly taken care of.


HOWEVER we are in wartime - when the loyalties of NO ONE in the chain of command should be subject to question.


THAT is the situation IN which the liberals have placed the NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn: "It's all just fancified D'Souza OPINION."

Agree. D'Souza's article is no more than "Obama's father thinks 'a'; Obama named his book 'Dreams From My Father' - therefore, Obama thinks 'a', too."

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

More teabagger madness:

SAVE AMERICA
EXPUNGE THE INELLIGABLE PRESIDENCY
http://twitpic.com/2nuihq

Yes, that's two spelling errors in just one word. Two for the price of one! How can you go wrong?

Well, look on the bright side Republicans, the GOP certainly has the idiot birther vote locked up.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

... still he is establishing a body of evidence that will make him virtually unelectable in a general election.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 1:18 PM
-----

You're talking about Obama, right?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"This has become your M.O. I say I AM NOT A SOCIALIST..you come back with YOUR INTERPRETATION that because YOU say so I'm a socialist."

Stop to think for a minute about how self-contradictory your positions are.

According to you, apparently, if a leftwinger says, "I don't believe in socialism," or "I'm not a socialist," it isn't reasonable to probe and examine what they actually do or their specific policy positions and rationales to evaluate for ourselves. We can't even probe what they understand socialism to be.

But for conservatives, of course, you take nothing at face value. In fact, it can fairly be said that you assume everything conservatives say about their motives and beliefs is a lie. They are all greedy plutocrats and racists in your opinion, who care nothing about anyone but themselves and how much money they can steal from others.

Note that in this particular instance, it is you and your gal-pal Jenn who are purporting to divine the secret thoughts and agenda of D'Souza and Gingrich. Not me. You. You claim to "know" they are wicked racists, despite no evidence of it and their undoubted rejection of the charge.

In your case, you have repeatedly stated ideas and arguments that are, as a matter of the history of ideas, undeniably tenets of socialism or have their roots there. This isn't a matter of psychology or speculation. You have repeatedly espoused a version of the labor theory of value and class conflict that underlie Marx's critique of capitalism. I'm quite sure you've never read Marx or much serious discussion of him (what drudgery it is!), but that doesn't change the pedigree of some of your beliefs.

What is really funny is that you are insensed about it because you claim you believe in neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism but a "mix" of the two. So you admit to being partly a socialist, I guess, but take great offense at being described as more than partly so.

Imo, that is much like claiming to be half pregnant. But in any event, what I've noticed are two things. One is that there is seldom any evidence in what you say of your capitalist side. The other is that, like most liberals today, you seem mostly to believe in socialism for other people -- namely for everyone who makes more money than you do. I suppose that's a form of believing in a "mixed" economy, but it seems to me to be nothing more than borrowing the elements of each that serve your own self interest.

You're a walking and typing bundle of self-contradictions and hypocrisies, ru. It's no wonder it is impossible for anyone to have a rational discussion with you. You are almost completely irrational.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 3:09 PM


You say you are NOT a socialist - but you want a redistribution of wealth -

And you want the government stimulus to divert money to the poor - where there is little chance for job creation


And you want the rich to pay more and more - under tax rates, and the health care plan - its ALWAYS about the rich paying more - and those making less than 50K a year getting a free ride.


Clearly, you are seeking to REDISTRIBUTE wealth - and then get those people "on the dole" to vote democratic - not because of their thoughts on the issues - BUT TO KEEP THE MONEY FLOW GOING.


That is socialism.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Ok, thanks for allowing me to demonstrate for you that I'm a troll and a buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 1:35 PM

-----

No problem. But was there ever any doubt?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...there a couple of honest conservatives on this blog...Brigade and Kevin W...and perhaps even SBJ who would not argue that point with you.

And quite honestly I don't wish to make fun of some of the others who would take issue with an obvious fact. There is at least one poster who I feel has some genuine challenges. I think literally it's time to ease up on this person...sadly...with no snark or animosity...it's not nice to pick on this person....obviously I'm not referring to you Q.B. so you are still fair game.:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"this crowd is very very white. Almost completely white in fact. This wouldn't be confused for an MLK day march that's for sure."

-----

Is there some point you're trying to make? The crowd is mostly white, so . . .

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Felipe Calderone, Mexican President:

"The Americans, rather than regulating or establishing an adequate drug or immigration or arms legislation have allowed organized crime to regulate those markets. And the massacre of San Fernando shows the consequences of not addressing issues that need to be regulated such as immigration, drugs, or weapons."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/mexico-weapons-calderon/

Who needs immigration reform? Who needs gun control?

It's opposition to "amnesty" and fears that "they're coming to take your guns" that are far more important values to uphold.

Being paralyzed by those fears is so much more important than addressing, say, the problem of violent organized crime, human rights violations, drug trafficking and arms trafficking on our southern border.

Keep em scared GOP! Heckuva job!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The issue of whether Obama is a muslim or not was pretty much settled when Obama gave the terrorist a lawyer.


The American people are smart - they understand the situation.


What the liberals FAIL to understand is the the American People are NOT against Obama being muslim -

The American People are AGAINST Obama SIDING WITH THE MUSLIMS against them.


This is exactly the DISASTEROUS TRAP which Obama fell into on HIS RAMADAN DINNER AT THE WHITE HOUSE.


(Please note Obama has cancelled the National Day of Prayer Ceremonies at the White House which used to be held every year - but Obama is hosting a BIG RAMADAN DINNER )


The American People KNOW all this - Obama and the liberals think they are FOOLING people.


Then Obama SIDES with a mosque at Ground Zero.


Out-Of-Touch ? yea.

Politically Naive? yea.


Tone deaf? yea.


Stupid ? YEA.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm reminded of some of talk of Iraq being invaded in order to please a papa.

Lots and lots and lots of folks of a certain bent bought that one whole and wigglin'.

{{{gigglin'}}}

BTW: this is cool:

"The fate of empires and the doom of kings
Lies clearly spread before my childish mind."
SCHILLER (Maid of Orleans).

D'arc voices in her head?

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"Is there some point you're trying to make?"

Yes.

The point I'm trying to make is that TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro is live tweeting the pathetic 9/12 rally and he had this to say:

"this crowd is very very white. Almost completely white in fact. This wouldn't be confused for an MLK day march that's for sure."

That is my point.

What's your point by saying "crowd is mostly white"?

Could it be that you are trying to minimize the fact that EM-S said that the crowd is almost completely white?

I think it is.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 1:04 PM |


I would guess the answer to your question is 68%

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Agree. D'Souza's article is no more than "Obama's father thinks 'a'; Obama named his book 'Dreams From My Father' - therefore, Obama thinks 'a', too.""

Good grief you two are just plain idiotic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

White people should never march...and many should never dance.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, Brigade has conclusively proven that he's not among the few remaining deep-thinking conservatives.

Congrats, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"Who needs immigration reform? Who needs gun control?"
-------
What we need is immigration enforcement. We have about as much gun control as the second amendment will allow. You've heard of the Supreme Court, right? Illegal use and possession of guns. Enforcement again.
-------

'It's opposition to "amnesty" and fears that "they're coming to take your guns" that are far more important values to uphold.'
------

Reagan tried amnesty. Didn't work. I'm not afraid of anyone coming to take my guns unless we get a few more nutjobs on the Supreme Court. Do you have anything to worry about? Felony conviction?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"obviously I'm not referring to you Q.B. so you are still fair game.:-)"

Have you been trying to give me a rough time? I hadn't noticed.

I am trying to compete with your prolixity, though. My gosh, I have to do some work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"well it's kind of like saying"

No, it isn't like that in the slightest. And I am not "splitting hairs".

It is dishonest rhetoric to attribute what was said by person A to person B simply because B has expressed agreement with A on something else.

Bernie lied. Simple as that. You can excuse him if you want, for whatever reason you want. But that won't change the fact.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

GOP's 2011 Agenda:

Shut Down Government, stop Social Security and Unemployment Checks from going out and wrecking havoc on the economy.
Don t doubt this radical agenda already being plotted by GOP Congressmen.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"this crowd is very very white. Almost completely white in fact. This wouldn't be confused for an MLK day march that's for sure.

"That is my point.

"What's your point by saying "crowd is mostly white"?"
-----

My point is: what is your point? So it's a mostly white crowd. Does that mean it's a racist rally? Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. are both dead, so I'm sure they weren't there. "Wouldn't be confused for an MLK day march." Too few "people of color?" White crowds bad; Black crowds good? Still don't know why you brought this up.

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, Brigade has conclusively proven that he's not among the few remaining deep-thinking conservatives.

Congrats, buford.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 4:13 PM
------

Your welcome, bufo. . . er, cletus.

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, is the crowd whiter than the line up at MSNBC?

Even though I still don't get the buford reference, can I be one?  If QB1 and ScottC3 are, I'd be honored to be in their company. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

GOP's 2011 Agenda:

Shut Down Government, stop Social Security and Unemployment Checks from going out and wrecking havoc on the economy.
Don t doubt this radical agenda already being plotted by GOP Congressmen.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 4:21 PM
------

leichtman1! Welcome. Now here's a fellow who's not afraid to tell it like it is. And to let me know if I get out of line. How's Bill White doing these days?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

BTW, ruk...looks like you won't get your wish about Jenn "shredding" me. She is obviously unwilling/unable to explain what it was she was talking about in regards to those "Randian notions".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Shut Down Government, stop Social Security and Unemployment Checks from going out and wrecking havoc on the economy."

If every GOP Congressman retired today, and all GOP candidates withdrew from their races, or ALL Republicans disappeared before our eyes (The Rapture!) the above (as described by Ethan's brother).......

Would still happen. And sooner too.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Even though I still don't get the buford reference, can I be one? If QB1 and ScottC3 are, I'd be honored to be in their company.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 4:26 PM
-----

I think it means we're backward and stupid. Who'd have thought?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

We're gonna take our country B... B... Zzzzzzzzzzz....

http://twitpic.com/2nutfc

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

"Even though I still don't get the buford reference..."

I don't get it either.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

B HUSSEIN O =
Jobs Killer
Baby Killer
Liberty Killer

http://twitpic.com/2nuy7d

Really? The President kills babies?

The media really DID do a bad job of vetting.

Btw, dontcha love the irony of someone marching against the government while calling the POTUS a "liberty killer"?

Pretty hilarious. And hey, the gubbmint better get their hands outta our medicare.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Brigade I have been wasting time at The Fix.Looks like it may be a 2-3 point race here with White having a money advantage. I see all this race nonsense as being the same idiotic nonsense here likely from our dear Fix friend. UT and The Texans are undefeated SO FAR , so things in Texas looking up. How if you been able to deal with the insane asylum comments? The Fix apparently taken over by tweeters.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys!

Remember that Star Trek when they beamed-up these space hippies that stole a ship and the hari-hari's called all the Enterprise squares "bufords"?

Remember!!! That was awesome!!

{{{uh tao, that was the Eden one and they called them "Herberts."}}}

Ohhh, never mind.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Ethan at 3:58 writes

Felipe Calderone, Mexican President:

"The Americans, rather than regulating or establishing an adequate drug or immigration or arms legislation have allowed organized crime to regulate those markets. And the massacre of San Fernando shows the consequences of not addressing issues that need to be regulated such as immigration, drugs, or weapons."


____________________________________

Yea - well I suppose the liberals are coming to a position that the muslims should define our Freedoms - and if the muslims will get upset about something, then our Freedoms should be restricted.


AND the Mexicans should start to determine our immigration, gun and drug laws

Well - that is ridiculous.


Clearly, the Mexicans would prefer "open borders" - which means practically ALL of Mexico can immigrate and work in the US.


Would Americans be able to work in Mexico? NO


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Brigade I believe you want grownups elected in Nov and the lat thing the markets need to hear are idiotic comments by Congressman Westmoreland that he wants to shut down hot in Jan. The last thing this fragile/recovering economy needs is a 1995 like political stunt or even threat of it to spook the markets s and send it back into a 2008 spiral. I don t find such threats in the least bit humorous.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

tao9 I'm on your side today. Your Gmen wiped out Carolina and of course the Panthers are in the Bucs division.

The Bucs managed to upset the Brownies today and so we can both celebrate.

Here's to the Giants and Bucs!!!

And Liam your Bears hang on to win a thriller....and while I understand that late call in the end zone...what a stupid rule...Calvin Johnson caught that ball!!!
But you get a win and in the NFL you take em however you can get them.

Quite honestly thought I like tao's chances much better than ours when it comes to whose team is headed to the Super Bowl.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Tao9,

Wasn't the dude who had the tribbles named buford?

Or was it that movie, Ferris bufords Day Off?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman1 Speaking of the markets...this is the fastest recovery after a recession in the past 25 years! Alas the market, GDP and other gains are not politically important with UE where it currently stands.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman & Brigade...

Sounds like you two both have experience at the Fix. I have never visited. I've been on this site since before the switch to this WaPo site.

In the past week we've had an influx of new posters...great for Greg..and "some" of you are welcome contributors left and right...others...others are sad cases.

Just curious if you can explain what went on over there and why the sudden influx of new posters who apparently have left the Fix for this blog?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

rukkiddig 7 this has been one of the slowest recoveries in decades primarily b/c the recession was so intractable and deep. GDP which is now only around 2-3% is considered weak even though the stock markets are up 75% from their March, 2008 lows.

The Fix was a great site for years but over the last 6 months was being spammed with nasty and personal attacks. In an effort to stop those personal attacks,the site was reconfigured 4 weeks ago, abusers were kicked off and ringers then hired to send bloggers to twitter. I pray those abuses don't migrate here but since The Fix is not doing well apparently others like me have moved here for more give and take political discussions. I am a loyal D but a southerner with a conservative or business tilt that brigade knows of and shares, and who listens to the other side with an open mind.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman1 Well if the spammers don't ruin us you've come to the right place. This place has it's share of snark and name calling but by and large we do get in some serious discussion in between the spats.:-)

I've noticed the brigade while conservative does call them as he sees them and is not simply a blind ideologue. You'll find Kevin W. is another conservative here who is very open minded and able to think critically...we have some others...but overall this place has been great which is why I continue to stay here and not visit other spots.

And Greg is an honest journalist..who while obviously progressive tries to give both sides their due.

Welcome leichtman1 and glad you brought brigade along as well...now if you could get our one sickie to leave and perhaps get some serious help...

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"but overall this place has been great which is why I continue to stay here and not visit other spots"

You can admit it, ru, you stay here because of Scott and me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The Fix turned into Texas Roadkill.


The liberals destroyed the place by harassing everyone - insisting on their sterotyping and False Charges of Racism


To them, if you did not agree with them, you were a racist.


There was a bunch of them - a few were always on - and they started fights with everyone.

There was no reasoning with them, no toning down their attitude - they just fought.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"You can admit it, ru, you stay here because of Scott and me."

Heh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

To be fair to the Mexicans, their beef with our gun laws really is not a Second Amendment issue.


The Mexicans believe that there is an illegal flow of guns south into Mexico - this mirrors the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants north.


The Mexicans do want "open borders" - they want all Mexicans to have work visas here - but try to talk to them about Americans getting all rights as Mexicans in Mexico.


Or returning the oil holdings back to the Americans which were nationalized - you can't have one population have one set of rights in one nation - and have the Mexicans deny property rights to Americans in Mexico.


And how do the Mexicans treat the illegal Guatemalen immigrants? Not too well.


The Mexicans are going to have to clean up there proposals a bit.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

re: Bufords . . .

I'm guessing a reference to Tennessee lawman Buford T. Pusser, made famous in the original Walking Tall movies from the 70s. If you like courage, determination, rural America and butt-kicking awesomeness, it's a compliment.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 12, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

The Fix apparently taken over by tweeters.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 4:42 PM
----

Yes, the new format was a complete turn-off for me. I used to read the comments during lunch and before leaving work and then chime in during the evening hours. Now I can't even read the Fix unless I log in, which I don't do from work because it's not what I'm paid to do. Also, I'm not much of a one for banishment. Drindl, Moonbat aka Zouk, Noacoler aka ChrisFox, 37th and I don't know who all were evidently victims of a purge. I did't see much of you, 12BarBlues, Broadwayjoe or many of the other regulars hanging around, just a lot of tweet leads. Nothing much on the weekends, so I just left. I'm still trying to recall if JennofArk was a regular at the Fix or maybe an old nemesis who has resurfaced under a different moniker. Anyway, there's a lot of give and take here at the PL and left and right both seem to have effective representation. Of course the moderator leans left, but that's his perogative and it's his blog.

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey - an honest assessment of how well Obama is adhering to his 2008 platform is fair game.

The guy ran on bipartisanship, transparency and creating a post-racial atmosphere.

Getting the 60 votes in the Senate turned out to be the worst thing for Obama - it caused him to turn away from his campaign promises - and turn sharply far left.


The American People are angry at all of this - they did NOT elect Obama to act this way.


Furthermore - with the country in an economic CRISIS, the country EXPECTED Obama to put aside his EGO, and put aside is egotistical desires to do "big things," - and concentrate on the economy.


The nation has a right to be ANGRY that Obama did not prioritize the ECONOMIC CRISIS.


All these issues came together on the health care bill - last September Obama did NOT go to Congress to talk about the economic CRISIS, he was there to talk about health care, his egotistical desire to do "something big."


The democrats have responded with ARROGANCE - leveling false charges of racism against anyone who opposed these policies of "big things."

Even someone who asked how much the health care bill would cost in the recession - they were racists.


It is all a part of the political debate.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's WEAKNESS on national security is also fair game - especially on this weekend.

To be honest - what you all say passes for "discussion" - come on - many times it is just an echo-chamber about how bad you think the Republicans are.

Sure, you guys might think this is ground-breaking stuff - but compared to slamming Obama, it isn't nearly as fun, is it ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

re: Bufords . . .

I'm guessing a reference to Tennessee lawman Buford T. Pusser, made famous in the original Walking Tall movies from the 70s. If you like courage, determination, rural America and butt-kicking awesomeness, it's a compliment.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 12, 2010 6:33 PM
-----

I can't speak for the poster, but I'm guessing it's just a general slur against Republicans, whom many consider to be mainly a group of ignorant Southern backwoods racists. The name I recall from the Fix was "cletus", used in the same fashion, but I can't say for sure it's the same poster. It could as easily be "bubba" or any number of other things. No different than referring to blacks as "sambo" or "sapphire" or "caldonia" or whatever---but definitely meant as a slur.

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

I think there were 4 people who were effectively blocked from the Fix: Zouk, Noacoler, 37th&OStreet and poor scrivener.

Drindl wasn't banned as I asked her. If Jenn was on the Fix, I don't recognize her style.

Noacoler is moving as we know, zouk seems to have gone off the grid, 37th is residing here on the Plumline and scrivener has been beamed up (the last a joke based on scrivener's conviction that microwave towers were torture chambers).

IMO, the moderators policy that you have to be "approved" to have your comments promptly posted and that the moderator seems to work regular business hours M-F, sure has put a damper on comments there.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't wanna be presumptuous, but since jennofark did not say that I couldn't be buford (no capital b) please just assume that I am one.

Ahhhhh... Views good from up here hunh?  So this is what its like at the cool table.  

I tell ya, that Jenn, always the high road. Reminds me of me!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Jenn, whether you like it or not "Obama's dad said b, and Obama himself recounted that his dad said b" is circumstantial evidence.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I sense 12bar that folks here are trying to be civil.Unfortunately discussions at The Fix had gotten totally out of control and nothing more than screaming constant personal insults.

I am trying to stir up a discussion as to why some GOPers are now promoting Shutting Down the Govt in January and the implications those threats have for economic recovery. I see that as potential disaster for the markets. Delayed SS or unemployment checks would certainly have a delitirious effect on our fragile recovery and the markets.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

rukidding at 5:03

Speaking of the markets...this is the fastest recovery after a recession in the past 25 years!

_______________________________________

Except if you are unemployed.......

some democrat you are, applauding the hedge funds and not caring about the working families of the nation.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Gee...who didn't see this coming? He must've gotten a phone call from Norquist:

"Boehner Tries to Walk It Back"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/boehner_tries_to_walk_it_back.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Kids these days!

"A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke” scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,” Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo." http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/skateboarder-extremist-burning-quran/

How cool is this kid.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Leictman writes

I am trying to stir up a discussion as to why some GOPers are now promoting Shutting Down the Govt in January and the implications those threats have for economic recovery.

__________________________________________

I don't think anyone is calling for a shut-down of government.


Let's be serious - if the Republicans capture the House, the budget is the point of contention.

The health care bill needs the budget to allocate funds for its implementation - so that IS going to be a point - the Republicans in the House can block that portion of health care.

When would that happen ? October of next year? How far is the government funded to???


The democrats have had the budgetary powers in the House for 4 years remember.


This is WHY when Obama was elected - promising bipartisanship - Obama SHOULD have made sure he stuck to that pledge - because now the sides have to talk and COMPROMISE.


Obviously, the Republicans are going to demand, at a minimum, a "give-back" of what they consider ill-gotten gains - which are CLEARLY what Obama got outside his campaign commitments.


Obama could try to veto budgets - but after the voters put the Republicans in the House to put a check on Obama - the public is not going to want to support Obama getting his way.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

The Fix had gotten totally out of hand, I agree, with too much spamming, stalking, gotcha's and personal attacks. I also agree that Plumliners are trying hard to maintain an environment of civility, and probably have been successful, until recently. Hence, the alarm at an ex-Fix spammer (and you KNOW who I mean).

As to your other issue:

Why the R's would shut the government down again after the fiasco in '94 (wasn't that it?), is strange. The economy and the markets would stutter to a stop, and economy would fall back for sure, and ordinary people would suffer. But then, I was amazed when the R's did it before.

Didn't the last shutdown lead to the end of Newt Gingrich's political career?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

And just what are the chances that the US congress (or the arms industry) might imagine that they have some responsibility for what is happening below the border?

One of the advantages of "exceptionalism" is that you never have to say sorry because it is simply not possible that wrongitude is present.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/mexico-weapons-calderon/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Go back to the Fix and see who is effectively barred and who is not.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Bernie said:

"How cool is this kid."

I can't help but wonder how cool Bernie would think this kid is if what he foiled was a US flag burning.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

It seems like you are trying to stir up trouble - why don't you go back to the fix - and harass people over there.

I think it's a great idea - no fighting'

No sterotyping - no slurs - no sexual slurs - the attacks have to stop


Discuss the issues

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

@STRF,

Oh, you're posting there? Which thread, because you sure are not posting on the last thread.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

The whole liberal cabal was exposed and thrown out - where are they?

They were harassing everyone.


I am hoping that the suggestions to go back into the archives and see exactly what was going on worked.


The liberal cabal is gone - they used to harass anyone who posted anything they didn't like


Over two and a half years, they drove hundreds of people away.'

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The 3 Minute Hate (but longer)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9ks36c549BI/TI1MiJnM3TI/AAAAAAAABoM/pHtxXudQmaA/s400/bolton.jpg

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Jenn, whether you like it or not "Obama's dad said b, and Obama himself recounted that his dad said b" is circumstantial evidence."

No it isn't, buford. Obama could recount something his father said in the context of disagreeing with it completely. Or he could recount something his dad said like "corn on the cob is tasty!" which he did agree with, and it would signify that both men liked corn on the cob, but not really anything of larger significance.

No matter how much kitty litter you drag over the top of D'Souza's embarrassing tripe, it continues to stink.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 12, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

IF there were a government "shudown," how would we know whether it was the GOP's fault or Obama's fault?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

IF there were a government "shudown," how would we know whether it was the GOP's fault or Obama's fault?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 7:54 PM
-----------------------------------
This is the same calculus used by the GOP in 1994. Tom DeLay recounts the event in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender, saying that Gingrich "made the mistake of his life."

Maybe this time, the GOP can make it look like the Democrats fault. Assuming everyone who saw it in '94 has mass amnesia. Always hope, eh?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Shutting Down the Government, Stopping SS and Unemployment Checks going out is No Joke. Today's economy is not what it was in 1994 and any kind of idiotic jolt to our fragile recovery could lead us to a 1938 type of crash and easily into a double dip recession. Its playing with Fire and hopefully voters will get that message before Nov.

Fault--is that the kind of game that the GOP is prepared to play?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"How cool is this kid."

Very.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The 3 Minute Hate (but longer)"

Care to fill us in on exactly what he said that constitutes "hate"? Do you even know what he said, or is it just the mere image of Bolton that is hateful?

Or are you just making things up again, like you did earlier with Gingrich?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 12, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1,

Nice to 'meet' you, you seem like an excellent contributor for sure. I like the idea of having a conservative-leaning Dem on the board, as I gather that is your ideological leaning. I look forward to some real issues debates.

RE: govt shutdown, not sure if you saw this but I posted it earlier... a politically-imposed shut-down would indeed be really really bad for the economy.

* Washington Gridlock Could Put Brakes on Wall Street *

Greed isn't the only thing often seen as good on Wall Street: gridlock is too.

Gridlock in Washington, that is. The stock market tends to breathe easier when a gummed-up government lowers the prospect of new regulation or legislation that might crimp businesses. And one of the surest ways to jam the system is when party control is split between the White House and Congress.

[...]

But this election cycle may be different. Those past rallies were driven as much by looser fiscal and monetary policy. This year, the Federal Reserve has pushed short-term interest rates to zero, and additional policy easing isn't likely unless the economy weakens considerably. And gridlock may prevent the government from trying to goose the economy with the kind of additional stimulus that may buoy stocks. [...]

All told, two big worries plaguing the stock market — policy uncertainty and sluggish prospects for economic growth — aren't likely to dissipate if gridlock takes hold in Washington. If anything, the market may find itself stuck as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704505804575484163629994710.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Since the GOP seems willing to run the same playbook, we can and should review the aftermath of the Great Government Shutdown:

In the summer of 1997, a few House Republicans had come to see Gingrich's public image as a liability and attempted to replace him as Speaker...

On July 9, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon had the first of several secret meetings to discuss the replacement. The next night, DeLay met with 20 of the plotters in Largent's office, and appeared to assure them that the leadership was with them...

Under the plan, Armey, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum; resign, or be voted out...

The plot collapsed when Armey pulled out and warned Gingrich.

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him a target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. ..

Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans...

Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."

The Speaker Steps Down, The New York Times, 11/8/98.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Shutting Down the Government, Stopping SS and Unemployment Checks going out is No Joke. Today's economy is not what it was in 1994 and any kind of idiotic jolt to our fragile recovery could lead us to a 1938 type of crash and easily into a double dip recession. Its playing with Fire and hopefully voters will get that message before Nov.

Fault--is that the kind of game that the GOP is prepared to play?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 8:02 PM
----

I'm going out on a limb here because I don't get memos from the vast right wing conspiracy, but I have a hunch this fear of a government shutdown involves a likely showdown between Obama and a Republican House should the Republicans take control.
For instance, if they decide to "defund" HCR by not appropriating any money in the budget, then he would be forced to veto or approve. I don't doubt that Republicans would try to test his mettle. But who would get the blame?

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Jenn, Obama did not recount something his father said in the context of disagreeing with it completely, rather he is implementing it as official U. S. policy. Play it down all you.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Brigade


You were right about what was happening at the Fix - I was suspicious too.

.

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

No one is going to stop SS or unemployment checks from going out -


What they want to stop is the democrats LOADING UP THE BILLS - because the democrats think they have a free ride on a bill to attach whatever they want.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think anyone is calling for a shut-down of government."

Gee....shocking that STRF would be wrong about something.

"Republican pollster Dick Morris told conservative political activists that newly elected Republicans should shut down the government next year."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/dick-morris-gop-will-shut-down-the-government-again-video.php?ref=fpb

"I'm almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year," tweeted Erick Erickson on Monday. "I cannot wait!"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/un-american----what-will-happen-if-republicans-force-a-government-shutdown.php

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, there doesn't have to be a vote to "defund".

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

RuKidding, Scott, and Schroedinger


For your information, 12BarBlues is encouraging the liberals who started all the infighting over here -


So she is the one who is stirring up trouble - if they start the fighting again - blame them.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat

Talk of a government shut-down is just scare tactics by the democrats.


It is silly - the American People WANT a check on Obama and the democrats.


Yea, Dick Morris, who worked for Bill Clinton and was around when Monica Lewisky was bringing pizzas into the Oval office.


I seem to remember what Clinton was doing during THAT government shut-down - it sure wasn't looking for a solution, unless one considers a cigar such a solution.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza, as a poster noted above, has been named President of King's College...

"The college, a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ,[11] claims the “Protestant evangelical tradition” as its own. It "seeks ambitious students who want to make a difference in the world," and who "seek a rigorous undergraduate education that is rooted in the Christian liberal arts tradition" in order to educate them for "principled leadership." "Through its commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview," the TKC mission statement reads, "The King’s College seeks to transform society by preparing students for careers in which they help to shape and eventually to lead strategic public and private institutions, and by supporting faculty members as they directly engage culture through writing and speaking publicly on critical issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_College_(New_York)

And not surprisingly...

"[D'Souza] notes that American conservatives have more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists than with American liberals."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915615?ie=UTF8&tag=hullabaloo05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0767915615

Biblical truths (whatever those critters are) and a biblical worldview are just the thing for America because they are whiter and brighter than the Sharia variety.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"I'm going out on a limb here because I don't get memos from the vast right wing conspiracy, but I have a hunch this fear of a government shutdown involves a likely showdown between Obama and a Republican House should the Republicans take control."

Gee, ya think?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. "You can admit it, ru, you stay here because of Scott and me."

Well I'll give you this Q.B. At least you haven't lost your sense of humor. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican, reportedly indicated at a gathering of social conservatives that a government shutdown could be in the offing if the G.O.P. takes back the House in this year’s midterm elections – and asked the activists to stand with the party if the government did come to a halt.

“We want you with us,” Mr. Westmoreland said, according to Slate. “We gotta have you there. Because they’re going to come and say, ‘Daddy can’t go to V.A., the national parks are closed.’”

Chip Lake, Mr. Westmoreland’s chief of staff, signaled in an interview on Friday that he thought voters’ interest in reducing government spending was at “an all-time high.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/republican-congressman-talks-government-shutdown/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

"Talk of a government shut-down is just scare tactics by the democrats."

So, you maintain that Dick Morris and Erick Erickson are Dems?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, there doesn't have to be a vote to "defund".

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 12, 2010 8:32 PM |
------

Sorry if I don't always make sense. I meant they may just not put any money in the budget for such Obama priorities.

Posted by: Brigade | September 12, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

So, you maintain that Dick Morris and Erick Erickson are Dems?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:41 PM
-----------------------------
Along with Rep. Westmoreland, R. GA, who is a closet Democrat apparently.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade...."Anyway, there's a lot of give and take here at the PL and left and right both seem to have effective representation. Of course the moderator leans left, but that's his perogative and it's his blog."

Another post Brigade I can agree with 100%
And yes Greg is obviously a progressive but he isn't a blind ideologue and actually responds to the righties who make good points. Greg also tries to follow what used to be normal journalistic conventions...ya know..like don't just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Had I mentioned it before?

I support the Obama tax cuts.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 8:32 PM


You are 100% correct. All the Republicans have to do is write a budget that does NOT include those items.


They CAN also stick in provisions stating that federal funds can not be used for certain purposes - but that is not necessary.


But then the bill would go through Congress and Obama then decides if he wants to veto it or not.


So ONLY an Obama veto would "shut down" the government.


They can agree on extensions - and push it out - usually Federal budgets go from October 1 - Sept 30. So if the democrats finish the budget this year, nothing would happen until October next year at the earliest.


But Obama would have to veto to start it - and Obama would have to COMPROMISE - something he promised in 2008 but Obama never did.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

More color commentary from Rep. Westmoreland:

“The government shut down,” said Westmoreland — and the crowd started cheering. “That’s what I wanted to hear! A good clap for that!”

According to Westmoreland, if they won a House majority Republicans were going to be “ready to hold the line and get those courageous men and woman” in the new class to stand fast and shut down the government. How would they avoid a repeat of 1995/1996, when the public turned against the shutdown and the GOP buckled?

The congressman recalled a similar shutdown that took place in 1995, when Newt Gingrich – also a speaker at the conference – was serving as House speaker. A future standstill could temporarily close national parks or delay payments from the government, Westmoreland speculated.

“We have put Band-Aids on some things that need to be cleaned out,” he said. “That is going to take some pain. There’s going to have to be some pain for us to do some things that we’ve got to do to right the ship.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

"Along with Rep. Westmoreland, R. GA, who is a closet Democrat apparently."

Yep. I tell ya - we're just a hotbed of liberalism down here! :)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

IF there were a government "shudown," how would we know whether it was the GOP's fault or Obama's fault?


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 7:54 PM


______________________________

It is done by polling - the American Public decides.


I know - it's crazy - because of the Polling - people said Clinton won what happened in 95 or whenever it happened.


But the whole shut-down let to the impeachment - Monica Lewinsky and that whole mess - so the government wasn't really functioning then either.


Which caused Clinton to take his eye off of the potential for terrorism in the Middle East. There is one story that Sudan was trying to turn Osama bin Laden over to Clinton, but Clinton didn't want to go through with the trial and whatever else.


I made this point because if Obama is going to obstruct - and refuse to compromise - ATTENTION to other things is going to suffer - and we don't know what will happen down the road.


That is the difference between someone who knows what he is doing, and someone who doesn't.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"No it isn't, buford."

Jenn, let me offer you a friendly tip. Your comments are just tiresome and annoying, as "smart" as you might think they are. You give a good lecture about insults and name calling and lack of substance . . . for someone whose every comment is pretty much those things. Do you seriously think people are so blind as to not notice that?

The snotty "No, I'm the cool one" routine is just sort of junior highish, and boring. You really ought to lose it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"I support the Obama tax cuts."

But will they pay for themselves?


What happened to the folks who wanted to stir the pot on GOP "plans to shut down the government"? No one wants to answer the question how we will know whose fault a "shutdown" is?

Do you just assume ex ante that any "shutdown" is the fault of a GOP Congress? If so, why?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton approval rating:

45% in 1994 when GOP won midterms
58% in 1996 reelection
62% when accused of sexual misconduct
68% when acquited in Senate trial
62% at end of 8 years.

Yeah, that really worked out for the Republicans.

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

Brigade at 8:18


The American People WANT to vote the democrats out of the House this year - so it is expected that the Republicans would write the next budget.


That midterm election is going to put Obama in a bad position - because the voters will speak this November.

Obama and the democrats are actually making a mistake putting this on the table right now - from a political point of view, they are "putting the budget up" for the election - so if the democrats lose the election, they lose on the budget issue too.

Im not sure if all this can happen this coming winter - or whether it has to wait a year.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"No one wants to answer the question how we will know whose fault a "shutdown" is?"

Interesting...so you believe that STRF is "no one"? Is he/she getting on your nerves, too?

See - you and ruk CAN agree on something!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I forgot to cite. For those who want to double check the polling:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues 9:14 PM


Bill Clinton lost both Houses of Congress in 1994 - which was a disaster.

All during the next 6 years, Clinton was unable to accomplish much of what he wanted

and ALL the while, Bill Clinton's Middle East policy was pretty ineffective - leading to 9/11.


And the Free Trade deals were passed - which has destroyed the US economy and thrown millions out of work.


And Clinton deregulated derivatives.


Millions of American lost MILLIONS or Billions in the Internet bust - a bubble which Clinton allowed to grow.

You call that a success??? It was a complete disaster.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting...so you believe that STRF is "no one"?"

How about, "mistakes were made"?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute!!

Assuming there will be a govt shutdown, with the stalwart GOP superstar Rep. Westmoreland (as in: who/t/f/is/dat?) in the vanguard, and it's incumbent to spread panic and loathing (as per usual): That means...ya'll believe you're going to lose the House.

That's some steadfast confidence in the cause right there.

Has Greg told Nancy?

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Had I mentioned it before?

I support the Obama tax cuts.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 8:44 PM |

______________________________


Obama wants to keep the taxes the same - and allow them to rise for others.


And Obama has been increasing everyone's taxes through the health care bill.

Obama took $500 Billion from Medicare when more and more babyboomers are retiring - and that has to be funded somehow.....

So, call it whatever you want - but Obama's policies are a drag on hiring and Obama is prolonging the recession.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton approval rating:

62% at end of term
68% in 2004

Poor Bill.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

12barblues,

Are you positing that the government shutdown led to Bill Clinton's high approval numbers in is second term?

Signed,

buford (fingers crossed Jenn does not
object!)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"ya'll believe you're going to lose the House."

Actually, no.

YA'LL believe that YOU'RE going to WIN the House.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey E,

I was a MA/Boston Dem for almost twenty years. My USRep., Joe Moakley, would of been to the right of Cantor.

What's your next trick, Carnac?

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

quarterback

"fault" is a difficult concept-


This whole thing could turn nasty quickly if Obama does not want to compromise - and Obama WILL be reminded time and time again that he was elected TO COMPROMISE.

The problem is the health care bill is on the table - how much of it can survive a budget battle ?


The other point of concern is there are alot of moving parts to the health care bill - and (hopefully) there is some over-all budget logic.


If certain parts are taken out, care has to be taken to make sure that massive deficits are not created - the thing has to be done properly.

Obama has a monster on his hands - the country believes he should have compromised in the first place.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

@troll,

Looks that way. The public disapproved of the shutdown and they disapproved of the impeachment. I'm not speculating about that--a study of the internals of the polls at that time reveal that. Further, Newt Gingrich, who was the face of the GOP at the time, steadily lost approval until he was below 30% approval and had to resign in 1998.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

* Production of stimulus-aided car batteries revs up *

The first wave of mass-produced advanced batteries funded by the Obama administration's economic recovery program are starting to roll off assembly lines, setting the stage for new hybrid and electric vehicles.

[...]

Battery maker A123 Systems Inc. planned to open a new lithium ion battery plant Monday in Livonia, Mich. About 300 workers, many formerly laid-off auto workers, were to join Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Michigan lawmakers to promote their production of battery cells and components. The Watertown, Mass.-based company received $249 million under the stimulus program and plans to open a second facility next year in Romulus, Mich.

Automotive supplier Johnson Controls Inc. last week started shipping batteries that were made at a Holland, Mich., facility built with the help of $299 million in federal grants. The factory expects to employ 90 workers by late next year and could produce 75,000 to 150,000 batteries a year, depending on the mix of hybrid and electric vehicles it supplies.

The Energy Department estimates that the 48 advanced battery and electric drive projects announced last year under the $2.4 billion program could lead to the production of about 75,000 batteries by next year and 500,000 batteries annually by 2014. Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and South Carolina are the states with the largest share of the projects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/12/AR2010091201159.html

SMART stimulus.

Well done Mr. President.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Bernie's a herbert.

{{{Notice the small-cap h. See what I did there? The lower-case burnsszzz!!}}}

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey, no one says that the GOP won't benefit by shutting down the government. Maybe they will. All I'm pointing out is that in 95-96 when they did the same thing, it was a major mistake. The GOP got blamed for it then.

But, go for it, if you think you can benefit. Don't worry about the economy or the markets. Who knows--maybe everything will work out.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

GOP looks ahead to possible accomplishments if they take control of the House and Senate...

Possible accomplishments?

NONE.
NADA.
ZERO.
ZIP.
BUPKIS.

Talk of defunding, rather than repealing, health reform — along with the possibility of a government shutdown — comes as Republicans ponder the limits of what they can do even with historic gains in the elections and control of both the House and Senate, as long as Obama remains in the White House.

“Most of what a Republican Congress is going to accomplish is in what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid — who will hopefully be out of power — are unable to accomplish in the next few years,”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42015.html

Really inspiring message for November.

Vote for Republicans so that NOTHING HAPPENS and we're stuck in this economy forever!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 12, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar and TrollMcwingnut


The American People ONLY approved of Bill Clinton when the Republicans had control of Congress.


When the democrats were in control of Congress and Clinton was in, the democrats were promptly voted out.


So one must take that context into consideration.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article on some Park51 funding for anyone interested.

Things just got a lot more complicated.

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/untangling-new-intrigue-behind-ground-zero-mosque

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The American People ONLY approved of Bill Clinton when the Republicans had control of Congress.
----------------------------------
You have the strangest ideas.

Wouldn't you think that people would disapprove of Clinton, and elect a Republican if they approved of the R's? Guess that's just too straightforward.

No, your explanation is some convoluted pretzel that since the people liked the R's, then they liked Clinton.

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

12 Bar and TrollMcwingnut


The American People ONLY approved of Bill Clinton when the Republicans had control of Congress.


When the democrats were in control of Congress and Clinton was in, the democrats were promptly voted out.


So one must take that context into consideration.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"SMART stimulus.

Well done Mr. President."

No doubt. We should have him making all the investment and production decisions for the economy.

Now if only the market actually wanted all those batteries.


"Really inspiring message for November.

Vote for Republicans so that NOTHING HAPPENS and we're stuck in this economy forever!"

Stopping Obama, Read and Pelosi from further wrecking the country isn't nothing. It's something pretty important.

And if Dems are booted by the public, Obama will need to do the right thing and not obstruct the new majority. Don't you agree?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess Obama's approval rating will go through the roof if the GOP takes the House. Something to look forward to.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

And if Dems are booted by the public, Obama will need to do the right thing and not obstruct the new majority. Don't you agree?
---------------------------------
Wait a minute! I thought that obstruction was the right thing. Isn't that what we've been hearing for a couple of years? Now, you're telling us that is NOT the right thing. Now, it's going along with the majority.

Who woulda thunk!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Politically, the best thing for the GOP could be to not win control but take enough seats to neutralize any further radical mischief.

And then sweep out Obama and the Dems in 2012 after the public has suffered two more years of this divisive incompetent. And could be the best thing long term for the country, too.

But Obama needs to get a message: we aren't going to let you "fundamentally transform" our country.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

"Stopping Obama, Read and Pelosi from further wrecking the country isn't nothing. It's something pretty important."

9 months of private sector jobs growth, extraordinary gains in peoples 401k's, positive GDP for months now, etc etc etc is wrecking the economy. The last year of Bush's Presidency was a boom time for the U.S. according to qb, having lost private sector jobs every month of the year.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Just an overall comment: I never realized how clever the GOP is. When they get into Congress, the democrats ratings go up, but it doesn't mean that people like the Democrats.

When the GOP obstructs, that's the right thing to do.

When the democrats obstruct, that's the wrong thing to do.

What will they think of next?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

What's the consensus here if the Republicans do take control of Congress (let's say The house {see what I did there}) and pass a budget that defunds (God willing, sorry about this ecumenical insertion) the various agencies designed to implement and regulate Obamacare. Further, for some reason the Senate also approves the Bill.

Does Barry veto it?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is leading now against Castle according to PPP. She's got the momentum it looks like.

This seems like another instance of Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

"Talk of a government shut-down is just scare tactics by the democrats."

as an aside its kind of interesting that anything that Rs propose is called a D scare tactic.

Remember it was Westmoreland and Dick Morris who are pushing this theory, so curious how that then becomes "a scare tactic by Ds?"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/republican-congressman-talks-government-shutdown/

We have also heard Miller, Angle and Rand Paul call Medicare and SS unconsitutional; Rubio go figure won't dare take that position. So is all this blustering by R candidates about the third rail, just hot air?

There have actually been a few positive economic signs last week with GDP slightly higher than projected, new unemployment claims down 26,000 and Portugal now saying they won't need bailout money from the IMF. Interest rates and the dollar are also improving along with international and US markets. Personally I would have no problem extending all tax cuts for just 1 more year with a pledge that in 2011 the upper end tax cuts end and all others become problem. The problem: Rs seem to have only one answer to deal with the economy, tax cuts and they certainly don t want to lose that issue for the 2012 election.

It would be very smart for Ds to say tomorrow, Congressman Boehner you agreed today to extend only those tax cuts under $250,000 now rather than us playing games lets have an up or down vote on that next week. Ds need to step up to the plate next week and vote for Obama's Research tax credits and the Bush tax cuts and let the chips fall where they may. Its not over til its over and again that would send a great message to the markets pre election and perhaps send a signal to voters that the economy is slowly getting better.
Curious if there are discussions here about the Deleware Castle primary on tuesday?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 12, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

It is not convoluted - the American people prefered the balance of the two parties holding two branches of government.


When Clinton was in and the democrats controlled Congress in 93 and 94 - the public was extremely UNHAPPY with what Clinton wanted to do.

Clinton was SMART ENOUGH to pull back his health care plan - he was then able to salvage something.

Obama pushed the health care plan through - now the nation is demanding its repeal and de-funding.


That is a new point of conflict.


If Obama and the democrats ACCEPT the results of the November elections - and allow the Republicans to write the budget - there will be NO government shut-down.


My feeling is this time is a little different thatn 94 - the American people are clear what they want - AND the economy is a pressing issue right now.


The American People want attention to the economy - and they want the health care bill to be repealed and defunded.

That was not an issue in 95 - Clinton already took health care off the table.


Does anyone know if the democrats passed the whole budget for this year - starting October 1 - yet.


I know that Nancy Pelosi did miss one budget recently - and they had a continuing resolution.


That would be the first clue as to when a show-down could happen.


It is clear that the economy is going to be the center of the budget negotiations - that much will be very much different from last time.

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

Man the Redskins are giving this game away - if they are going to play like this, they might as well forfeit right now.

And they are still winning by 10 points.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, mike, the economy is clearly roaring back. Jobs and markets soaring.

And the business community can hardly wait for its taxes to be raised! No wonder they are out there hiring and investing in new capacity!

The illusion/delusion is over. Obamanomics, which is just a more extreme version of the same old big government snake oil, is a failure. He is a faillure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

If the House flips, and the new majority significantly FAILS to spend bupkus4bang borrowed $1.4Trillion/annum in the ensuing two years, I will consider the 112th Congress to be an unqualified success.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

LMAO...Not to make fun of the helpless but really...

The Redskins are giving the game away....

The Cowboys had the ball on their own 37 yard line with 4 seconds left in the first half and while everyone speculated the 'boys would do the right thing and take a knee...nooooo...they dorked around..Romo pitches it to Choice who promptly fumbles and with 4 seconds left the 'boys give the Redskins a freebie seven points...and yet it is the Redskins who are giving the game away...they should forfeit...ohhh btw they were leading 10-0 at the time of this moronic post. If it wasn't truly sad this person would be a hoot!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

qb thinks after a decade of spending on wealth created by a housing bubble, the consumer is just going to come roaring back or something like that.

The only failure is your inability to see our economy moving in the right direction after dealing with the Bush recession that almost took down this country.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"When the GOP obstructs, that's the right thing to do.

When the democrats obstruct, that's the wrong thing to do.

What will they think of next?"

Are you sensing any internal contradictions yet?

And, a question I keep asking and no liberal will touch: Why is Obama holding permanent middle class tax reductions hostage to his madness to raise taxes on employers?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Who cares?


The American Public wants a CHECK on Obama and the democrats in Congress.


It is that simple.


And there are other issues - like Obama's weakness on national security issues.


But CLEARLY the American Public does not trust the democrats enough when they control both branches of government - the public grows unhappy very quickly.

It is interesting - during the Reagan years it was the opposite - Republicans in the White House, and the democrats controlled the House.


Clearly, the public does NOT want the massive health care spending programs - they drag the democrats down everytime.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Zero net job growth in the first decade of this millennium and qb is complaining of how Dems run the country.

That's rich.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Remember it was Westmoreland and Dick Morris who are pushing this theory, so curious how that then becomes "a scare tactic by Ds?"
-----------------------------
I'm so glad I blogged today or I wouldn't have stepped through the lookingglass.

Donchaknow, Republicans are often secret agent Democrats stirring up fear. People vote for Democrats when they really want Republicans. Government shutdowns are good and social security and medicare is bad. Who needs the VA anyway! And Yellowstone--just a bunch of no-good mooching bears.

I just hope the GOP doesn't keep this quiet. I hope they shout it from the rooftops starting tonight.

I have a sneaking hunch that Bizzaro World only lives on this blog.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington: "9 months of private sector jobs growth, extraordinary gains in peoples 401k's, positive GDP for months now, etc etc etc is wrecking the economy."

Maybe mikefromArlington is saying this for "shock" effect. He does have a history of that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_85.html#comments

What's todays lessen for us wingers?

signed,
buFord (fingers still crossed)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

No, qb believes that liberal "economics" is a set of delusions based on resentment and envy, of which mike is a good example. And you'll never run out of excuses for Obama or capacity to blame Bush. The economy always goes up after going down. Your party has controlled Congress for four years and POTUS for going on two. They told us their big-government extravaganza would have us far ahead of this. It failed, and Obama is a miserable failure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Today's lesson is private sector job growth is moving in the right direction. 401k's in a much better place from where they were is moving in the right direction. Home prices stabilizing and going higher is moving in the right direction.

Did my comment strike a nerve with u mcnut?

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

"Production of stimulus-aided car batteries revs up"

Hope, Change, CorporateRentSeekers, SoKoreanLabor, ObamaTelekinesis and $3Billion Overcome the Laws of Physics.

How long do you figure it'll take to get from Niskyuna to the Meadowlands by golf-cart cause I've got tickets for the November 2021, Giants/Cowboys game.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I know Republicans would love not to hear Bush's name but unfortunately for you bozo's Bush and Republicans will be in the annals of history books as the stewards of this country during what was almost a great depression. I'd be pissed too.

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

Liars always strike a nerve.

Then pity.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Liars. Who's lying tao9?

Just because you two decided to lash out at me while silent while people on your side of the isle make outrageous statements on a daily basis and it takes my ridiculous statement to highlight the hypocrisy.

I expect to see you and qb to get equally outraged when Dems on here are called terrorist sympathizers or when what you people consider conservatives cheer on actions that could potential put our troops in unnecessary harms.

Anyways, here's the first 3 years of Bush's Presidency. Those were the days of prosperity. Right guys? Roaring economy. Right? Bueller?

2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178

2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156

2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the rest of you guys don't care, but I am an investor. Since the catastrophe of the financial system collapse in 2008, the Dow has gone up 57% and the NASD has gone up 70%, which is one of the best years in the history of the stock market.

My portfolio and my retirement accounts are VERY grateful for those huge increases. I give credit to the Democrats. I can't think who else to thank, except God.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

@mike,

I can't interpret your numbers. Can you summarize them somehow in order to make your point?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 12, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Redskins better pull this one off. Would be a great win to start the season off even though the offense didn't do so well.

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

Those are job gains (in thousands) via bls.gov for the first three years on Dubya's Presidency.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Mike,

"Just because you two decided to lash out at me while silent while people on your side of the isle make outrageous statements on a daily basis and it takes my ridiculous statement to highlight the hypocrisy.'

See, Mike, here's the thing; I was not silent. I did call them out on my side of the AISLE...you ignoramus. (Especially STRF, but who the hell knows
WHAT side he's on.) You just aren't around enough here or at the old blog to have noticed it.

You jerked your tungstenbrainpan that resides in your knee so hard you couldn't
conceive of an indie/con doing that.

So it's a lack of imagination, tolerance of another's opinion, and charity on your part.

Lying squint.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

If you choose not to believe me then so be it.

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


quarterback1 10:35 PM


The illusion/delusion is over. Obamanomics, which is just a more extreme version of the same old big government snake oil, is a failure. He is a faillure.

_______________________


This is 100% correct.


I wish I had written this line - can I use it ?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that's the ticket...

You give away your credibility for pottage.

One ought to think he will be believed by all met. The only way that is possible for a man is to not shoot his mouth off when he doesn't know merde.

Posted by: tao9 | September 12, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

MikeinArlington, "while people on your side of the isle make outrageous statements on a daily basis."

As the great civil liberTarian, michaEl mOore said, One mans (outrageous statement orator)is another mans(warrior poet). So how can I disavow some sort of outrageous statement on the right if I agree with it?

signed,
buford (again, Jennofark I take you silence for aquiescence)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 12, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - you know what's REALLY hilarious?

The fact, that's FACT, that History's Greatest Monster and biggest economics "loser", Jimmy Carter, saw 10.5 million jobs created under his administration. Yeah, that's right: Carter created over 3 times as many jobs in 4 years as Bush did in 8.

Isn't this just PRICELESS?

But don't take my word for it - this comes straight from that liberal bastion, the Wall Street Journal.

Read it and weep, bufords: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Let's be honest - and it would be really good thing for the nation that the liberals began to listen and understand where the conservatives are coming from.


The conservatives view government spending as RUN-AWAY.


Everytime the democrats are in power, they JAM the budgets with more spending and more programs.


The Republicans too - but it is really difficult to put the cuts through - and go back to a reasonable level of spending.


The democrats in the 1990s seemed to get it - balanced budgets were a goal - but now the democrats are insane - they just want to spend spend spend.


So, "shutting down" the government is seen as a pause button - a way to start making the cuts.

No one wants to stop social security or unemployment.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

"Talk of a government shut-down is just scare tactics by the democrats."

_____________________________


Several posters have tried to push this talk onto the Republicans - but the WHITE HOUSE is stirring this topic up.


As PROOF - THERE IS A WHITE HOUSE BLOG CITED BELOW.


Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on September 10, 2010 at 10:33 PM EDT

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington | September 12, 2010 10:45 PM


Comment about how the democrats have "run the economy"


_____________________________

Yes - I object to the "bubble economies" which were allowed to develop - first with the internet under Clinton and then the mortgage -real estate bubble.


The Clinton people have been in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


I also object to the Clinton Free Trade Deals - the trade deficits


I also object to Clinton deregulating the derivatives markets, and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.


___________________________

ALL these actions by the democrats did much much more damage to our nation than the Iraq War did.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Let me see if I can get in sync with your view of the world. According to you, Clinton caused all the financial catastrophes that occurred in 2008, even though he had been out of office 7 years. And Obama caused all the financial catastrophes that occurred in 2008, although he hadn't been in office one day. And in between, we have GW Bush who was a model President even though all the catastrophes occurred on his watch.

This is the first example of a Presidential jumping explanation I've ever heard. Like leapfrog, we just jump over poor George.

Did I hear that right?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

"I know Republicans would love not to hear Bush's name but unfortunately for you bozo's Bush and Republicans will be in the annals of history books as the stewards of this country during what was almost a great depression. I'd be pissed too."

Get it straight for once.

1. Republicans, let alone conservatives, never ever had the control your radical, destructive party has.

2. Actual conservatives like me were harshly critical of the very liberal policies of Bush in key areas like domestic spending and big government education. Those are all policies where YOUR ideas remained in full force.

3. Despite all that profligate liberalism, the economy grew and jobs grew after the Bush tax cuts.

4. Tax cuts did not cause the 2008 melt down, nor did some imaginary "deregulation." If you want to get serious about the government causes, try looking at the government's inept regulatory interventions and attempts to manipulate economic decisions that led to the real estate bubble and the junk mortage markets. There you will find he fingerprints of liberalism. You'll even find the finger prints of your heroes like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, who claimed there was nothing wrong and no reason to tighten up on that corrupt Democrat racket of Fannie and Freddie, which were used as biggie banks for limosine liberal Democrat crooks like Frank Raines.

5. Our economy and our government revenues are massively larger than they were in 1980, which is all the proof anyone needs that your cockamamie claims that lower taxes destroy the economy and starve government are pure nonsense.

In two months, the the Obama Republic, his radical remaking of America, is going to be aborted by voters.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "Let me see if I can get in sync with your view of the world. According to you, Clinton caused all the financial catastrophes that occurred in 2008, even though he had been out of office 7 years. And Obama caused all the financial catastrophes that occurred in 2008, although he hadn't been in office one day."

Let me propose an alternate theory: presidents do not and never had had 100% control of the economy.

Indeed, even if deregulation or free trade policies had a hand in economic problems, better behavior on the parts of hundreds or thousands of investors, business executives, bankers and so on might have made a particular change a net positive, rather than a net negative.

Not to mention most of the specific deregulation that has happened, and that many consider to be problematic, originates with the house, rather than a particular administration. And Clinton had a Republican house to deal with for 6 of those 8 years.

A lot of things have long term impact on the economy. Deregulation is one of those things, but deregulation is just one incentive. What foreign markets are doing (and what they'll buy) has an impact. If foreign banks hadn't been so anxious to buy mortgage derivatives, the real estate bubble wouldn't have been what it was. Was that Obama's or Bush's or Clinton's fault? Which one of them is to blame for the "flip this house" culture that cropped up in the home real estate market, from seminars to HGTV shows that extolled house flipping as a fun-and-easy way to get rich quick! And what sort of laws should have been in place to prevent the dot-com bubble? And whose to blame for us not stepping in to prevent that irrational exuberance?

And you can choose to blame Clinton or Bush for 9/11, but I'm made to understand that there were some independent actors involved. In any case, there was a huge financial impact of the economy in losing that much financial expertise and assets, not to mention that much ongoing (to this day) disruption in the financial hub of this country. Clinton or Bush or Obama shoulda planned for that?

I'm very sympathetic with blaming politicians for the stuff they actually do. Obama did actually run for president on a platform of being a quasi-magical bringer of unprecedented hope and change: of, in effect, being a transformational president. When he doesn't deliver, it's fair to say there might be a problem there. The Bush admin really did start a pre-emptive war in Iraq. However, when it comes to blaming one guy for an economic system more complicated and unruly than the weather . . . I'm not sure that's a practically sustainable position, under examination.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

@Brigade:
I can't speak for the poster, but I'm guessing it's just a general slur against Republicans, whom many consider to be mainly a group of ignorant Southern backwoods racists."

Well, naturally, because demonstrating a deep hostility towards rednecks, hayseeds, rural rubes and anyone who might be low-class enough to live in a trailer was such an awesome election strategy leading up to 1994.

Meaning, of course, that I find that attitude to be prevalent, rather than simply confined to JennofArk.

Well, we'll see how well it's working for them in November.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

"I expect to see you and qb to get equally outraged when Dems on here are called terrorist sympathizers or when what you people consider conservatives cheer on actions that could potential put our troops in unnecessary harms."

Your expectations are somewhere below irrelevant. I said what I had to say back on those threads. Anyone who wants to see the truth about it can go find them.

SO "expect" in vain all you want. What people should know is that you are a routine source of outrageous calumnies and appear, like Ethan, to be a genuinely dangerous personality. Your anger and hatred are disturbing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Republicans, let alone conservatives, never ever had the control your radical, destructive party has."

But we've always had 'em leashed. At least since after the LBJ/Nixon era. I tend to agree with liberals that the Clinton presidency was actually pretty good. Of course, that's in no small part because of what happened in 1994 and 1996. Additionally, I don't have the same problems (not saying that I like what Obama has done, per se, but I just don't have the huge problems many conservatives do) with what Obama has accomplished. Of course, that's because there is a part of no to keep a lock down. Indeed, there are some areas where I think certain Democrats (Blanche Lincoln) had better, more stringent regulation concepts that I would have liked to have seen in the final FinReg. Of course, in the end, the incestuous relationship between DC and Wall Street prevented certain real changes from happening.

Which is another point. The Republicans and Democrats tend to end up cooperating on softening regulations or removing them, because as much as they fight in the electoral sphere, they all tend to have friends with deep pockets on Wall Street. The "one side fights for the rich, the other for the poor" is street theater. Bread and circuses. Pay no attention to those men behind the curtain.

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

Kevin,

Well said at 7:43. This is why it is always a hopeless oversimplification to focus on "who was President" rather than what policies can plausibly be connected to which results.

Your point about the economic impact of 911 reminds me of something I often think about because I travel quite a bit.

That is the sheer economic drag of things like heightened airport security. I'm not aware of any meaningful measurements of such relatively "direct" economic impacts, but clearly they are not small. People forget that in the immediate aftermath of 911 commercial air travel ground to a halt and did not begin to recover for some time, and we still "waste" untold time and energy on unfortunately necessary security precautions today.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_88.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 13, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "People forget that in the immediate aftermath of 911 commercial air travel ground to a halt and did not begin to recover for some time, and we still "waste" untold time and energy on unfortunately necessary security precautions today."

Don't forget the economic drag of TSA agents rifling through your luggage and stealing your stuff. I think one of 'em just got nabbed for snagging some $20k or more worth of jewelry from people's bags? Now, that's some fine security! :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

"Of course, in the end, the incestuous relationship between DC and Wall Street prevented certain real changes from happening."

I think it might fairly be said as a broad generalization that people in both parties, with exceptions, together rode the bandwagon toward disaster in a comforting if misguided belief that everyone would make out on the deal, not just Wall Street fat cats but ordinary Joes who would get to ride the real estate bubble and had 401ks.

Step right up for the big government free lunch! Everyone's a winner! You lend, you borrow, we subsidize! Everyone's a winner!

That seems to me to crudely represent the whole sorry affair at its elemental level, and is the same pattern we should always expect in one form or another (the next one will always be the same but different and thus unexpected) from interventionist economic engineering, whether it is Obamanomics or the kind of uneasy collective and bipartisan bandwagon ride we had under divided and shared power.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Kevin wrote: However, when it comes to blaming one guy for an economic system more complicated and unruly than the weather
-------------------------------
My post was not to blame Bush for the global financial collapse, but to question why is is all Clinton/Obama's fault as STRF says. If it is too complicated to blame Bush, isn't it too complicated to blame Clinton?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "My post was not to blame Bush for the global financial collapse, but to question why is is all Clinton/Obama's fault as STRF says. If it is too complicated to blame Bush, isn't it too complicated to blame Clinton?"

Indeed, which was the point of my post. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

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

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




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company