Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:08 AM ET, 11/21/2010

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

If Dems repudiate all their accomplishments and admit GOP ideas are superior, agree to big cuts to popular programs long associated with the Democratic Party, and nominate Evan Bayh and Heath Shuler in 2012 in order to prove they'll put the deficit and preserving tax cuts for the rich above all else, they'll be right back in the game.

By Greg Sargent  | November 21, 2010; 9:08 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Retired general: Senate GOP doesn't trust our military
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Meet the "Daisy Ad, 2010"

“In a world where terrorists seek to destroy everything we hold dear, Russia’s nuclear weapons cannot be left unmonitored,” an announcer says in a grim voice. As he speaks, a mushroom cloud erupts, reflected in one of the little girl’s eyes in grainy, black-and-white video, much as it did in the original ad.

The commercial, which is scheduled to run on cable television in states whose senators will be key to passage of the new treaty, is the work of the American Values Network. A countdown clock on its Web site indicates that it has been 349 days since the U.S. last inspected Russia’s nuclear weapons.

President Obama has started a concerted push to try and get the new treaty passed this year. Republicans, led by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, have expressed resistance, saying that more time is needed to study the treaty that Mr. Obama negotiated with Russian leaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as1cTOx8Hrk&feature=player_embedded

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/new-daisy-ad-warns-against-delay-in-arms-treaty/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 21, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Greg

You say: "If Dems repudiate all their accomplishments"

I say: What accomplishments? Earlier this month, Americans demonstrated at the polls that they are frustrated by the Dems and the Reps.

Americans will not allow our country to become a socialist state. The Dems will lose the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Boxx

Posted by: BoxxNine | November 21, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

You make a good point. Dems have to decide (much as do the GOP)what they stand for & either sell it to their constituents or walk away from it & have their points of view determined by the most recent poll. CA just re-elected a serious Democrat (Jerry Brown)whois not afraid to defend what he believes in and separate right from wrong. A mind and a heart are good traits for anyone including politicians.

Posted by: lindambahlman | November 21, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The West Coast just (re)elected lots and lots of Ds (except in WA3rd, but she, the R was just too cute not to elect her) so this may turn out to be an interesting experiment. Will CA OR and WA get their economic act together faster than say, FL, NC and VA?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Greg writes: "If Dems repudiate all their accomplishments and admit GOP ideas are superior"


____________________________

First - I don't know what the "accomplishments" are - but what Clinton did in his last six years has wrecked the Economy

The Free Trade deals have been a complete disaster.


It was Clinton's search for relevance, instead of accepting resignation, that damaged the Economy more than anything

__________________________


THAT is the CLEAR LESSON one must take from Clinton, not anything else.

As for the "liberal agenda," it is worth noting is not really the traditional democratic agenda. Rather is is a collection of the agendas (agendi) of the interest groups in the democratic party - blacks, gays, women, hispanics and environmental groups.


It is essentially this coalition nature of the democratic party which is causing so much trouble.

The point is that these groups are pushing for each others' agenda in order to get their own agenda in place. There is very little "owning" of the agenda items across the groups.

________________________________


The TRANSITION from the "tranditional" democratic set of planks - to the "liberal agenda" of today - well that is ITSELF AN ADMISSION THAT THE REPUBLICAN IDEAS ARE SUPERIOR.


So, everytime you push the "liberal agenda" you can remember that it is nothing but an admission that the old democratic agenda has been cast aside.


,

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Do you want the good news first shrink? The Inland Empire in CA where I live finally had a drop in unemployment, of almost .6. The bad news, we're still at 14.2%. Uggghhh.

Although my son's best friend a 39 year old retired firefighter just landed a job. He was injured at work about 16 months ago and after two surgeries and rehab he was forced to retire.

He's got a bachelor's in Business Administration, a degree from the Butte Fire Academy, graduated number one in paramedic school and was an engineer for the last 3 years. He was retired with about $30K per year, lost his home 3 weeks ago and finally got hired after searching since July 1at a motor home sales and servicing outfit, he'll be making $10 per hour. He called me last night, another one of my almost kids, sooooooo excited to get back to work. We've come to a very sorry state.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 21, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"Dems repudiate all their accomplishments"

________________________


Not sure what the "accomplishments" are.

If you are talking about health care - Power is derived from the consent of the governed - and in this case, the democrats NEVER had it.


Health care is a FAILURE. It is a failure of over-reach. The country can't wait to FINISH OFF the rest of the democrats - throw Obama out of office (back to Indonesia, if possible) and take back the US Senate.


It was only an accident of history that the democrats still have the Senate - due to the rotation of the Senate seats up for re-election in three two-year cycles.


The democrats have LOST whatever CLAIM they had to a mandate. They claimed to have a mandate which they never had, but that is a different discussion.


IRONICALLY, the ONLY mandate that Obama still has is to COMPROMISE. And that point is extremely telling. All we hear from the left in the past few weeks is to ignore the American People, and ignore the results of the election.

What happened to Obama's promises of bipartisanship and compromise ????


The liberals JUST DON'T GET IT. That is why people voted for Obama, NOT for their short-sighted liberal agenda.


The liberals set out to fool America, but in fact they only ended up fooling themselves.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Warren Buffet on the Bush tax cuts:

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett told ABC News in an interview set to air later this week. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett said in the clip from ABC News' "This Week with Christiane Amanpour."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/warren-buffett-trickle-down-theory-hasnt-worked-video.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 21, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

agree to big cuts to popular programs long associated with the Democratic Party

________________________________


AT some point, the democrats are going to have to "own" the deficits and debts with the democratic party has created.

The union contracts have been put out of control - which are the results of secret negotiations protected by attorney-client priviledge.


One case in point, the outgoing Governor of Iowa has put in a 100 MILLION dollar give-away to the unions - 100 Million per year, and left the bill for the Republicans.


At some point the democrats have to realize that the COSTS matter - and the balancing the budget and keeping the debt down is a PUBLIC GOOD, not a partisan football.


It is simple that: the willingness of the democrats to make deficits a partisan issue (defictits are BAD) - and to make wars partisan issues - All that makes the democrats UNFIT to govern.

_____________________________

Precisely, the very existence of the liberal agenda - replacing the more traditional planks of the democratic party has rendered them without direction. The liberal agenda is FLAWED - and represents the real loss the democrats are in after Reagan.


It is that simple. The flawed liberal agenda is NOT an adequate response to Reagan. The democrats need to scrap it and start over.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

shrink2, I would bet that Christie's New Jersey recovers quicker than any of those other states.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,"

Actually, Mr. Oracle, it has NEVER worked. Also, "the public" understands this. It is REPUBLICANS who don't understand it and refuse to accept reality. Go tell your rich corporate Republican friends to stop killing the economy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 21, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,"

Actually, Mr. Oracle, it has NEVER worked. Also, "the public" understands this. It is REPUBLICANS who don't understand it and refuse to accept reality. Go tell your rich corporate Republican friends to stop killing the economy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 21, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

If Democrats wanted to cut taxes MORE than the Bush tax cut level, I don't think that the GOP would object.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Greg

The Reagan Era has already rendered the democrats in the position you are describing.

The traditional democratic ideas of a constantly expanding government have been rejected. This is in part because the government can not grow much larger without taking over more of the economy.

Supply side economics matter. Someone has to invest in plant and equipment. Someone has to hire people. Someone has to grow businesses.

The liberals prefer to skip over this important aspect of tax policy.


Taxes are really not the place for "class struggle" and "income gap." Americans don't want to hear that reasoning. And if that is the primary motivation of the democrats in all this tax talk, they are best not to express those ideas, because it will only further isolate the democrats.


The democrats are at a dead-end. The liberal agenda is a cul-de-sac and the democrats are driving in circles.


___________________________

This search for "something to do" led Bill Clinton to the Free Trade deals and to the Wall Street de-regulation which DESTROYED the economy.

Flawed policies are no substitute for the lack of an agenda for the democrats.

AND that is precisely what the democrats have given the nation: flawed policies fueled by partisan desire to "win."


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Ethan, did you see this?

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

Dear Mr. President

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires

The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as schedule would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 21, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, if you ever want to VOLUNTARILY donate your money to the federal government, let me know and I will get you the address for "Gifts to the United States."

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe that many democrats realize that Nixon put in place much of the expansion of the Great Society programs - so to characterize much of that as "democratic programs" just doesn't reflect what happened.

So the younger democrats have a view of history which really does not add up.


The Conservatives started with Goldwater, and gradually grew. They drew support from the "silence majority."


Reagan ideas were a major TRANSFORMATIONAL time. Reagan changed the way Republicans thought.

Reagan also changed the way democrats thought, and the way democrats approached their own agenda.

___________________________


I'm sure the democrats of today would react with immediate jealousy to be confronted with the idea that Reagan was the real TRANSFORMATIONAL character of our era.

However it is true.


The democrats are still struggling to come up with an answer to Reagan's ideas.

Bill Clinton started as a centrist, then turned to the left with Hillary's health care plan and got burned. The result was a mish-mash of economic policies which DAMAGED the economy.

Obama looks at that time as a time of "small things" and "school uniforms."


Obama, unbelievably, has followed the same flawed and unsucessful course: Start centrist, turn left, get burned.


_______________________________


Now Obama's majorities in Congress are either lost or going to be lost. There are so many democrats up for re-election in the Senate, tough votes there are not going to be had.

The democrats are in denial. They just don't realize that Boehner has a veto over everything right now.


AND the democrats are in denial that a budget has to get done - and that will REQUIRE a measure of compromise and an atmosphere of working together. "In your face politics" has been a failure for Obama over the last two years and it will be even worse going forward.


If the democrats get "in your face" after this election, they will risk losing their party completely. The democrats will be sent home for a long, long time.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Greg, didn't you mean refudiate?

Posted by: edgery1 | November 21, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, if you're around today, did anyone link to Frank Rich yesterday, or did I just miss it? Sorry to say, he agrees with me more or less, she's running if she wants to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/opinion/21rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Posted by: lmsinca | November 21, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Good point claw, NJ plus FL will be v CA, with FL and NC perhaps comparable to the OR and WA economic structures, strengths and weaknesses, I'll try to keep up with this from time to time.

Imsinca, it is all around us, the reality is worse than whatever ruling party wants to acknowledge. They always want to promote confidence, so consumers will consume and businesses will hire.

But whether it is the Bush White House promoting confidence or the Obama White House...to me the message of the November election cycle is that people are sick of being told to be confident. Now how that translates to Republican victory, I'll chalk that up to stuff we've chewed on endlessly, it isn't as if their words mean anything, that is, unless NJ, FL, NC and VA recover faster and more sustainably than CA, WA and OR.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

What poison is in the air causing the posters to forget what happened under the Bush regime? I'm no fan of Clinton's conservative moves; but, at least he had the tech spurt going for him - which caused him to have the last balanced budget (surplus actually) in our history.

It was Bush's spending that wrecked the budget - or is a war, another war, an additionally bloated military budgets, overspending on the Terror-cycle for those 100 members of Al Queda (as if that was their target in the Military Industrial Complex) and a tax rate on millionaires that is funding their purchase of politics.

Common sense is is being sucked out of us by FOX Mews. Start using facts, not your remote control. TV exists to make a profit...not to inform. Corporate-owned media exist to make a profit...not to inform. Understand that the profit motive will not subside untill greed subsides.

Obama is a trojan horse Republican. Measure him by his actual deeds, not his empty, yet lofty, words. Obama is more conservative than Richard (EPA, Title IX, revenue sharing, ending the cold war, ending the draft, etc...) Nixon. Obama will be known for mandating forced corporate insurance for their enhanced profits. That's not socialism, it's corporatism.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | November 21, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch Jindal and West on "Meet the Press"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Sueszzoooo


You forgot to mention that Reagan put the top rate at 31%

You have to remember the American People do not want you to look at taxes like it is some socialist "class struggle."


If you add divorce to the mix, the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR MEN IS 70%, which is 39.6% plus 50% of that to the women.


You have to consider divorce NOW - when you look at the historical situation.


If you add property taxes, sales taxes and the divorce - the 30% which is left after the 70% probably comes down to about 15%.


MEN keep about 15% of their income after all that. The effective tax rate is 85%.


That is the TRUTH.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Watch Jindal, you mean for free? I have a hard enough time getting up-an-at-'em Sunday mornings.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"unless NJ, FL, NC and VA recover faster and more sustainably than CA, WA and OR."

So I guess the race is on. I agree it will be interesting to see which strategies work or not. The problem with CA is that we're so far in the hole now, thanks almost entirely to the housing bubble, there's no money to spend to claw our way out. And really people here are just worn out although we did manage to get out and vote, thank God.

I know a lot of commenters here pooh pooh the "green" revolution, and I realize there are inherent problems, but it's really the only thing we've got going now to generate employment. Schwarzenegger made a lot of mistakes IMO, but I give him credit for energy issues and a vision for the state.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 21, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Our current therapeutic approach to national security is dangerous. I'm just not interested in empathizing with the "grievances" of our sworn enemies. Let's figure out where they're vulnerable and destroy them.

Jindal "Leadership and Crisis" page 249

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The whole issue is whether the democrats have come up with an adequate answer to Reagan (yet)


And clearly, the situation is the democrats are still struggling. A leap to the left is not working, and only results in the democrats appearing to be out-of-touch with the nation.

Take a look at the House election map on the Washington Post. The blue areas representing the democratic House wins are almost all on the coast. 42 of them are black majority gerrymandered districts which probably should be abolished.


The competitive districts in which the democrats won ? Almost zero.


I'll venture to say that - if Obama wasn't in there - a majority of the blacks would not support the "liberal agenda" and all this "class struggle" garbage.


The democrats have support which is extremely shallow

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

shrink, you post HERE for free, right? Add Louisiana to the red State vs. blue State economic recovery race. They've cut spending, Portfolio.com says they've got the 2nd best economy right now (behind NJ) WITHOUT raising taxes.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Jindal's leadership in crisis, how are his entirely useless but certainly not worthless sand piles I mean barrier islands going, you know, his berm-doggle? Lately he decided, even as they melt away, that they are going to help with some hurricane in the future; why can't he just say he wasted millions and millions of dollars that could have been spent on dare I say it, a sustainable economic infrastructure.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

rjmmcelroy at 11:15 AM


A wartime Economy is a wartime economy - to draw partisan conclusions from a comparison to a peacetime economy is flawed reasoning.


In addition, a bubble economy is a bubble economy. If you want to draw any sound conclusions, one should substract out both the internet bubbles and the mortgage bubbles.

And that will give you the "real growth" and the economic strength of each time period.

______________________


Also, Economic policies take time to kick-in. The current Economic crisis is largely the fault of Bill Clinton's policies.


Lastly, "real economic growth" is a separate criteria from the budget deficits. Partisan who pick-and-choose what they want to support their partisan assertions really don't help reasoned discussion.
____________________

Lastly, Clinton pulled our intelligence resources out of the Middle East in the 1990s - leaving us blind to the terrorist threat.

You going to blame Bush for that???


Clinton over 8 years, never came up with an adequate policy to deal with Iraq. You going to blame Bush for that ???


The Republicans were basically cleaning up Clinton's mess in the Middle East. And you come on and harp on the budget deficits during those years.


Just making a point. Nancy Pelosi said she would keep the budget balanced. Over 4 years, she ran up the debt 3 Trillion dollars. Those numbers are eye-popping.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage?

You might start with rejecting the advice of economists and oppose any kind of stimulus investments. You'd also want to cut spending and take money out of the economy, while blocking funds to states and municipalities, forcing them to lay off more workers. You'd no doubt want to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, and identify the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund) so you could kill it.

You might then take steps to stop the Federal Reserve from trying to lower the unemployment rate. You'd also no doubt want to create massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

You might want to cover your tracks a bit, and say you have an economic plan that would help -- a tax policy that's already been tried -- but you'd do so knowing that such a plan has already proven not to work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026737.php#more

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 21, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, they supported our first black President (Bill Clinton), so I'm just hoping we can convince them that African-American REPUBLICANS like Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Rep. Elect Allen West are a better way to go.

Speaking of which, lmsinca, there were no retired Generals on the Sunday talk shows, but West is a retired Lt. Col. (Go Army! Beat Navy!)

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I don't think LA counts in the recovery race, between Katrina, the BP money, the oil industry, its not entirely red state status, it is an outlier in too many ways.

I do post here for free, but that takes seconds from what I am actually doing when I'm online, which is working, yes, working. Now it is true, watching Jindal would be a lot like work, but I don't do that for free.

Imsinca, if we don't have jobs which can't be exported, be won't have an economic recovery. That means jobs like the Intel company has decided to put into Beaverton OR, billions in infrastructure to build their next (nano) chip.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/intel-investing-billions-in-us-manufacturing-creating-thousands-of-jobs/40681


Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone else still miss Tim Russert? I think that God took him home to avoid his heartbreak from yet another Democratic Administration failing.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's working hard, but not for Louisiana"

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2010/11/louisiana_gov_bobby_jindals_wo.html

Same as Gov Chris Chris in NJ. Both are just strip-mining the states they govern bare to polish their Con bona fides for a presidential run. They will each be long gone before the catastrophic effects of their myopic policies are realized by the people in NJ and LA. It's the Con way: consequences are for suckers.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 21, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

For those who knew noacoler on the Fix (Chris Fox), please know that he has moved to Vietnam. He sold his house here, moved himself, his belongings, pets and everything to Vietnam, where he is residing in his new house. He reports everything went smoothly getting out of the U.S. and entering VN, even with his birds (he is a collector).

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I'll never take the 63yo Mitt Romney seriously unless he stops blacking his hair with shoe polish, using "touch of grey" over the ears. I'll bet he keeps an exact count of the number of hairs he allows to be gray.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

First, of course, Kennedy is tragically killed, then Johnson (who at least had the good political sense to not run in '68). Of course, Carter was a spectacular failure. Bill Clinton was impeached.

For the good of our nation, I hope that Obama does not get reelected.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

More evidence... Voters that went GOP in 2010 were older, whiter, less educated than the national average:

"The Republican victories were concentrated in districts with those voters. In the 63 districts that Republicans won, 39 were older than the nation as a whole and 40 had a higher percentage of people without college degrees. The starkest difference was in racial composition: 47 of the 63 districts won by the GOP had a higher percentage of white people than the national average."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002858.html

The GOP's "We The People" movement is made up of old, white, undereducated people. In actuality it doesn't look anything like the ACTUAL composition of the American population. And that is only going to become more pronounced over time.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 21, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

IMPEACH OBAMA ON 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS


Who gave Obama the power to change the procedures at the airports???

If Obama suddenly said "let's have full body-cavity inspections, would that be legal under the existing authority???"


Where is the line between REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE -??? We are clearin in Unreasonable right now.

Remember Congress said it did NOT want to fund the Radiation-scanners -

And yet Obama diverts stimulus money to buy the Radiation -scanners which Congress rejected.


Is that CONSTITUTIONAL?? And then Obama comes up with all these coercive methods to FORCE people to go into the scanners.


Everything about Obama is about FORCING PEOPLE to do things his way.


Choice and the American way runs counter to what Obama wants.

IMPEACH OBAMA ON 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, I hear the Ronald Reagan colored his hair too (I guess you didn't vote for him either). Do you think that Romney-Palin would have gotten more or less votes than McCain? I can tell you, especially with the economy turning the way it did, that I would have at least voted for him. Who were his economic advisors (I know that Doug Kmiec was a legal advisor). I wonder who was in line to be Romney's Secretary of the Treasury. Whomever it would have been, we can at least agree that Romney would have been much more knowledgeable on economic matters.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

If Obama puts his wife and daughters through a ENHANCED PAT-DOWN, then maybe the country will think about it.


Let's see Obama do this.


Obama has EXCEEDED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL authority in requiring the SEXUAL ASSUALTS at AIRPORTS


IMPEACH OBAMA IMMEDIATELY


Congress never approved the purchase of the radiation scanners.


IMPEACH OBAMA IMMEDIATELY


IMPEACH OBAMA FOR VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Romney would never have chosen Palin. If there is an ungovernable state, MA will always be a top contender and it has endured far worse governors than Romney (this is high praise from me, being an unapologetic socialist).

Romney would never have "suspended" his campaign in order to stage a campaign stunt by crashing the Wall Street bailout party. If he had, Romney would at least have known what the words meant. He will be the R nominee this time. He might win, it all depends on retail sales now...

But the knives are out for Palin. See even today Barbara Bush, whose approval was and still is very high in the minds of American conservatives (everyone but the left actually), says Palin'd be better off to stay in Alaska, the state she all but abandoned. Ouch!


Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

You think that BARBARA Bush has influence with conservatives?!

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Would you accept the following "compromise": single payer government healthcare in exchange for a complete ban on abortions?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Ooops, well I am juggling here, I just revised two care management forms for a hospital. At least I didn't call her Betty or Nancy.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

You mean overturn Roe v Wade or no federal funding in a single payer system of care for abortions, such that abortion funding must be self-pay, done for free (volunteers doing it, not salaried staff cost shifting from other remunerated procedures) donated, or paid from some private charity, foundation or whatever?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Overturn Roe v. Wade


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I mean a complete ban on abortions, not just overturning Roe v. Wade. This means that every viable pregnancy will be taken to full term, paid for by the government, and that child's medical care will be covered to the grave. How bad do you want single payer healthcare?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

12 Barblues

The reports are that Broadwayjoe moved with Noacoler - because there was a substantial love interest there.


Apparently both have been identified as spies by the Vietnamese -


Currently they are both hanging up-side down in a pit - and that is why we haven't heard from either of them in months.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

@ BoxxNine = "Earlier this month, Americans demonstrated at the polls that they are frustrated by the Dems and the Reps.

Americans will not allow our country to become a socialist state. The Dems will lose the White House and the Senate in 2012."

I think you and most of the tea party type republican's missed the elephant in the room this past election, when tea party candidates like Ken Buck, Sharon Angle and Raund Paul were telling their true positions they were dropping very fast in the polls. Considered non-electable. It wasn't until they shut their mouths and stayed off the camera that they became competitive.

No matter how loud you say the Democrats policies are socialist, it doesn't make far right positions any more palatable. It would be nice if the two parties could compromise and meet in the middle but it seems clear the right will demand the Democrats meet them in the center but they are loudly refusing to budge from the far right.

You might be speaking to fast in saying the Dems will be out in 2012, unless the right starts compromising and get off their pro-corporate, screw the middle class even at the destruction of the nation agenda they will be out also...

Posted by: soapm | November 21, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm also trying to find out if Hillary Clinton had less than a 35% approval rating among independents back in 2008. Would she have beaten McCain? Probably. We all know that she had high disapproval ratings, at least before her current gig, so at least it can be done.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

There's no point in bothering to read an 'open thread' post here anymore. It's just impossible to get anything valuable out of a comment thread that continues to be hijacked by single individuals who add no value or insight to discussions.

Posted by: nj12345 | November 21, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

There's no point in bothering to read an 'open thread' post here anymore. It's just impossible to get anything valuable out of a comment thread that continues to be hijacked by single individuals who add no value or insight to discussions.

Posted by: nj12345 | November 21, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

There's no point in bothering to read an 'open thread' post here anymore. It's just impossible to get anything valuable out of a comment thread that continues to be hijacked by single individuals who add no value or insight to discussions.

Posted by: nj12345 | November 21, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

@RTR: And here I thought you sprouted a new brainstem, advocating new taxes on investment firms, hedge funds, and private equity(?). Firms.

I am all for the financial transactions tax that is structured to collect revenue from hyperfast computer arbitrage. Derivatives and especially CDOs and CDFs should be taxed at least until the entire 2 trillion + of bad govt debt (overvalued property) is retired. Ready to sign on?

Then back to the 24/7 anti-obama rant (not even good ranting, just repetitive drivel).

It is in fact the repubs that are busy trying to frighten the public into continuous security panic, engineered the "patriot" acts (what was that about screwing the bill of rights)?, advocate ever more intrusive search and seizure laws in the "drug war", and in general demagogue the "law and order", "national security" and "homeland" security issues to nauseating excess, including what borders on anti-arab (or what righties label as arab)/anit-muslim nativism. Personally, I found the old regime (liquid limits? really? that is really going to stop someone?) ridiculously intrusive and unconstitutional, but flying is a voluntary activity. No one is forced to use airports and travel by air. There are cars, there are trains. I am more worried about the health effects to the tsa workers from the current xray baggage machines and the new danger from the 360 personal scanners. Radiation is cumulative and they don't wear radiation badges (they don't need no stinkin' badges).


"Clinton over 8 years, never came up with an adequate policy to deal with Iraq. You going to blame Bush for that ???"

No I blame bush for invading a country with at best, horribly flawed information and more likely deliberate slanting of ambiguous evidence, costing far in excess of the 1 trillion already spent among other things.

I blame the republicans for the clinton witch hunt throughout his 2 terms especially the impeachment. The repub congress took its eye off the foreign policy and national security ball in both Iraq and afghanistan and plunged the country into 4 years of partisan "investigations" and unprecedented attacks against and about the clenis. I remember when Clinton did send some missiles into afghanistan to go after "terrorists", where was the "politics stops at the shore" bipartisanism? Where were the serious discussions about what to do about the security and humanitarian crisis in taliban controlled afghanstan? Lost in an ocean of self serving second guessing and hyperbolic criticism from the armchair warriors of rightwingnutistan. If the same level of republicans interest and energy of was focused on the emerging threats in central asia and not on the politics of personal destruction, even they could have come up with a few positive policy suggestions (amidst the typical nonsensical blathering).

Posted by: srw3 | November 21, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

srw3, did you know that a Texas court had ordered mid-decade redistricting 30 years before DeLay did it?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"This means that every viable pregnancy will be taken to full term, paid for by the government, and that child's medical care will be covered to the grave."

Ok that works for me (I think it a good idea, though not essential since the outcome is the same anyway, just more expensive, to abort when the embryo is known to have certain terminal abnormalities, like anencephaly or Trisomy 13).

I am a socialist not a moralist. If a society wants to make abortion illegal then it can, but I don't think societies should be allowed to abandon children to a life no one would consider worth living. If we take care of our own as a society, if all babies are going to have a really good chance to live happily ever after, well that is when we get to call a society a community.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

nj12345 agreed.

Might I suggest,

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

Cheers.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Republicans don't respect the military? I didn't know this was news. Thinking back to the last decade, can anyone name one Republican policy that was beneficial to our troops?

Posted by: DDAWD
-------

LOL. Members of the military are evidently just more of those people who consistently vote against their own self interest. What was it John Kerry said? They're just too dumb. If they'd only become liberals, they wouldn't want to serve their country anymore; they'd be worried about government handouts, abortion, gay rights, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Poor suckers.

Posted by: Brigade | November 21, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, too bad that you and I are not in charge.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Much of the quality of our lives is affected more by the integrity and foresight of local and state government than by the initiatives of national government. I am always and forever saddened that so few people vote for city councils, school boards, and state legislators.

This is by preface to a report from TX. In October we added 48K jobs. That is about 30% of the nation's total, and they were acroos the boardprivate sector jobs: mfg, HC, services, construction, extraction; not stimulus related.

OTOH [sorry, shrink] TX has a $20B+ shortfall and is toying with dropping out of Medicaid.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/health-reform-and-texas/can-texas-and-a-dozen-other-states-drop-medicaid/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20sat1.html?_r=1

Where will the trend lines cross? The Lege will not raise taxes, and most of state expenditures are on schools, roads, and health care. So the cuts will be felt.

This red state, with both a huge upside and a huge deficit, will provide some useful laboratory evidence for the future.

I do think the Medicaid dropout will not happen. When the nursing home association sends the buses of wheelchair bound elderly to testify to the Lege, some legislators' oms are sure to be among the soon to become evicted. The optics will be bad.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 21, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence12 : Complete ban on abortions? You mean, a ban for poor and working class people. People with disposable income have always gotten abortions, "legal" or not.

Who goes to jail? The woman, the doctor, the hospital administrator, the nurses?

Don't you remember what life was like before roe for poor women with unwanted or medically risky pregnancies?

Posted by: srw3 | November 21, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes (did you miss the part about SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE providing for those babies, children, youths, middle-aged, and elderly?)

Since poor and working class get a disproportionate number of abortions, your position is actually the one against them.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

As for "Who goes to jail?" under my proposal, the woman, the doctor, the hospital administrator, the nurses, accessories before and after the fact (just like murder prosecutions in the real world).

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

claw,

Do you remember what it was like before Roe v. Wade?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

No, I was born (thankfully) in 1969. Similarly, I've never driven drunk, but I know that's wrong too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Since poor and working class get a disproportionate number of abortions..."

Yes, so disproportionate in fact it could be argued to be a form of eugenics, as liberals look the other way. Out here on the "hard left", the way the deck is stacked against poor people is a political process, a wealth extraction procedure. Too poor to have a child? No problem. Poof, gone. Now get back to work.

Abortion has nothing to do with birth control, it is a menace to society. The way it works is a social disgrace and again, I am not talking about morality, I am talking about why it is that the vast majority of people who have abortions have them.

Society can embrace every child as its greatest opportunity, a manifestation of collective love for kids and everyones' guaranteed investment in every other life (my view of socialism). No one is stopping us from doing that.

But the way things are now, you have that child and you are taking a solid, direct hit against yourself and the child or children you have. If the village says *all* Babies R Us, then it works.

Overpopulate the world? Heck no. The cradle to grave health care nations don't make babies at replacement rates.

This miraculous state of America, that isn't about life before Roe v Wade, it is about the way we should be. It is never going to happen of course, obviously. What is more likely to happen is the preservation and exacerbation of our most excellent set of downward mobility opportunities.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Please educate some of these posters who think that our economy waited eight (8!) years to react to the Clinton economy. I've read too many posts who blame this economy on Clinton. Do they think that the Bush years of "spend, spend, spend" did NOT lead to this labor depression?

Come on people! Lay off the booze, drugs and imaginary economic patterns. Next they will want to tell us that trickle-down actually works.

RedTeaRevolution, I'm pointing at you. Stop with the obvious stupidity.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | November 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Did Broadwayjoe move with Noacoler, and are they hanging up-side down in a pit yet?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

No, I was born (thankfully) in 1969. Similarly, I've never driven drunk, but I know that's wrong too.
-------------------------------
I am prolife, but you would increase your credibility a LOT if you did some research about what it was like before Roe. You might be surprised. Your proposal sounds outlandish to those of us who remember preRoe, and remember I am prolife.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for the suggestion Shrink2 ...

Kevin Willis, I seriously can't thank you enough ...

Posted by: nj12345 | November 21, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, I hope the GOP passes single payer healthcare / abortion ban and then you will see Obama veto it.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

clawrence,

Your ban abortion idea sounds a lot like someone in 1950 thinking that abolishing alcohol will abolish drinking. And then, someone asking "do you remember Prohibition, like what it was really like". And the proposer saying "no, but I know drinking is wrong".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Did Broadwayjoe move with Noacoler, and are they hanging up-side down in a pit yet?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

nj12345 at 1:19 PM

we have never seen you comment on this thread or any other.


And yet you feel comfortable complaining


AND instead of adding a comment which you might believe "adds value or insight to discussions" you don't do either.


YOU don't add any value.

Instead you complain and drag the place down. Why don't you just leave?

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

srw3 | November 21, 2010 1:23 PM

No, taxes on imports tarriffs like the US used to have would work.

The added benefit is that those would help balance the trade.


NO, a tax on financial transactions, stock transactions would not work, They would just located the black boxes in another market, or another financial exchange. They would find some offshore haven, like the BVI, Panama, Dublin, or the Bahamas, or even the Isle of Man, in which to located the black boxes.


Once you place a tax in the developed nations, then the offshore havens gain an advantage AND you lose the ability to regulate the markets in those locations as well.

Hence, such a tax is actually counter-productive.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S ORDERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


Obama is now ordering the strip-searching of little boys.

It is a sickness


THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO IMPEACH OBAMA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - THESE AIRPORT PROCEDURES ARE THE SICKEST THING EVER FROM OBAMA


OBAMA IS MENTALLY ILL

IT IS ABOUT TIME THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS START TO DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST OBAMA'S VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT.


I am sick and tired of Obama


Obama has to resign as soon as possible.


These new procedures are a product of mental illness.

,

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It will never happen, America does not come together that way. Abortion access without family access to health care is what we have now.

We could have no access to health care and no access to abortion and I would oppose that heartily, with my time and money. Everyone has to be considered a gift child.

Meanwhile,
rjmmcelroy, please try this, see what you think,

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

Installed 386 times. We can't all be wrong (?).

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Work slow-down at TSA at O'HARE in Chicago already

The REVOLT against Obama has begun.


We have to take our country back. The liberal government of Obama is insane. We have to stop the irrationality of Obama. Two years more of this crap is too much. It is time to get rid of Obama now.


Something has to be done.


I challenge all who have democratic Senators to call them and urge them to vote to remove Obama from office. We need 20 democratic Senators to agree to get rid of Obama and it CAN BE DONE.

YES WE CAN

YES WE CAN

YES WE CAN

YES WE CAN

YES WE CAN.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

rjmmcelroy AT 3:57 PM


Interesting that you offer little actual economic reasoning to support your name-calling.

As evidence I cite Clinton's Free Trade deal with China and Indonesia. These were supported with questionable campaign contributions, but let's not get into that.


1) Clinton allowed the internet bubble to develop and grow - which led to the sub-prime mortgage bubble

2) Clinton de-regulated Derivatives - which led directly to the Wall Street crash

3) Clintor repealed Glass Steagall, which was a depression-era protection against the power of big banks

4) Clinton allowed the elimination of Regulation Q - if you don't know how horrible that was, look it up

5) Clinton STARTED the Sub-prime mortgage programs, pumped 2 trillion into the mortgage markets which artifically inflated the real estate markets, and gave long term appointments at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm sorry but you know little about the Economic Crisis and its causes.

The cause was not an income tax cut. It was Clinton's disasterous policies.


Please do some research before you start your name-calling. It only shows how ignorant you are, and it proves that you are an ugly person.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

rjmmcelroy AT 3:57 PM


Interesting that you offer little actual economic reasoning to support your name-calling.

As evidence I cite Clinton's Free Trade deal with China and Indonesia. These were supported with questionable campaign contributions, but let's not get into that.


1) Clinton allowed the internet bubble to develop and grow - which led to the sub-prime mortgage bubble

2) Clinton de-regulated Derivatives - which led directly to the Wall Street crash

3) Clintor repealed Glass Steagall, which was a depression-era protection against the power of big banks

4) Clinton allowed the elimination of Regulation Q - if you don't know how horrible that was, look it up

5) Clinton STARTED the Sub-prime mortgage programs, pumped 2 trillion into the mortgage markets which artifically inflated the real estate markets, and gave long term appointments at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm sorry but you know little about the Economic Crisis and its causes.

The cause was not an income tax cut. It was Clinton's disasterous policies.


Please do some research before you start your name-calling. It only shows how ignorant you are, and it proves that you are an ugly person.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The liberals continue to fool themselves into believing that they can shut down the truth.


It is the truth which is the real enemy of the liberals - not the conservatives.


Everytime the liberals push their hate speech, centrists and conservatives just shake their heads. They know perfectly well that the liberals have little basis for their flawed reasoning, and yet they believe if they smear the Conservatives, they can convince everyone that their flawed ideas are correct.


The liberal agenda is dead.


The sooner the liberals realize that, the sooner this country can move forward. And isn't that what everyone wants? To move forward. The liberals and Obama are holding this country back. We have to move forward.


The liberal agenda is on the ashheap of history.

History has left the liberals in the dust. The sooner the liberals abandon their crazy ideas, the sooner the nation can unite and move forward. That is what everyone wants.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

We have to remember that Obama's extension of benefits to same-sex partners of Federal employees was an Appropriation of Federal funds WITHOUT Congressional Approval.

That is another grounds for Impeachment.


The Executive can't just go out and spend money WITHOUT the approval of Congress


Obama should be impeached.


Obama should be impeached and removed from office - there are about 10 counts of impeachment, only one of which is required to get rid of him.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Once Obama is impeached and removed from office, our Great National Healing can begin.

The country will be united and we can move forward again.


Gridlock will end, and the nation can work together again.


The countries of the world will see how great our democracy works - and peace will break out all over the Earth.

The United States will be strong again, and the Economy will Improve. The world will be a better place. Birds will sing, and the Sun will Shine.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, did Broadwayjoe move with Noacoler, and are they hanging up-side down in a pit yet?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

clawrence,

You are asking me what?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Clawrence,

You didn't know that they met up and became lovers?

They are both in Vietnam and they are accused spies.


They are both hanging upside-down in a pit, which is ironic. Now they both have to listen to each other all day, day after day, week after week, month after month.

That is all they have. Listening to each other about how great Obama is and how wonderful the liberal agenda is.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, I agree that Obama should be impeached just as soon as we have 67 votes to convict in the Senate.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, because you provided the update before.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The update on what?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12

We can start to prepare the Articles of Impeachment.

We need 20 democratic Senators, which will be difficult due to the partisan nature of the defense for Obama.


Obama is tripping up. The House can impeach Obama anytime after January 5th. I think this Airport Violations of the 4th Amendment just might be enough.

Obama made a statement yesterday in which he said that sexual assualts of women at the airports is the only way to provide security - well yea, except for RACIAL profiling, which Obama has some objection to.

Not sure about why Obama is so against racial profiling.


Any way - El Al Airlines has a much better way.

I have no idea why Obama and Janet Napolitano went this way. I suspect they are acting out their inner hositility toward people who are not like them. It is the only psychologically explanation.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"OTOH [sorry, shrink] TX has a $20B+ shortfall and is toying with dropping out of Medicaid. Posted by: mark_in_austin"

Is my memory picking from other decades, os wasn't it jusy at the start fo the current market crash and job eradication swing that Texas was bragging about how recession proof it was? You know, all that energy industry stuff and Houston and all that. In Fact a certain Governor whose particular political talent sits above his cranial epidermis?

Somehow I seem to remember a Texas Governor talking about secession, and how Texas would be better off independent and living on its own means.

Would Good Hair have an explanation for being so broke as a state that Texas can't afford to meet its obligations to its seniors?

Posted by: ceflynline | November 21, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

From their instant attacks on Cris Fox based on the news that he completed his contemplated move to Viet nam, Could Jake D: (clawrence) and 37th (Red tea) get another bounce for repetitious thread trolling?

Posted by: ceflynline | November 21, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I never understood why some people were so threatened by Chris Fox moving to Vietnam. There are lots of expats, for lots of different reasons. My uncle is an expat and has always lived overseas for business reasons.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, did you or did you not post the following update: "For those who knew noacoler on the Fix (Chris Fox), please know that he has moved to Vietnam"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I did, clawrence. Playing prosecutor again eh?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

@RTR: There are no stock markets in somalia even though taxes on transactions don't exist. If there is no value in trading on the NYSE, then trading would already have moved to botswana or yemen where regulators would be as cheap as congresspeople are here. There is a premium to having the servers as close to NYC as possible to maximize the tiny differences in prices as quickly as possible. There are ways to measure and tax computer arbitrage trading that doesn't make offshoring inevitable.

Posted by: srw3 | November 21, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

@Ims
Rich's column is perceptive, as usual.

One point he makes is the fearfulness (justified) other potential candidates have in attacking her openly not wishing to make enemies in her base. As I mentioned earlier, that's an advantage she would have going forward, in the debates and primary campaigns.

And he accurately portrays her media advantages if she does run and if Murdoch, Limbaugh and the other important right wing media entities decide to support her.

And that's the critical indeterminate at this point. Will they? If they don't, she's dead. Would Murdoch and Limbaugh head in opposite and warring directions? I can't imagine that happening because it would hurt both of them in ripping the movement apart (one of them would be automatically placed in the position/framing of "Republican elites" by the other) so they'll coordinate.

Rove is, of course, not merely an "insider" though he surely is that. He's also the right's top analyst and, now, he heads up the most effective fundraising machine on the right. His determination on how best to move forward won't be ignored by the corporate sector which is, wisely, sending their money his way. If he concludes that Palin cannot win or is highly unlikely to win, I doubt he or the powerful folks he represents will do the meek thing. Too much money at stake.

On the other hand, if Murdoch concludes it is in his interests to have Palin run, then it's difficult to figure how things will go.

As you know, I hope she does run. The potential for the right coming apart both before and after is seriously appealing.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 21, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

No, 12BarBlues, I was asking whether you could confirm that Broadwayjoe had moved to Vietnam with Noacoler, and whether they are hanging up-side down in a pit yet?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

@RTR: "In your face politics" has been a failure for Obama over the last two years and it will be even worse going forward.

Funny how it is just fine for repubs to basically harden their positions after historic losses in 2006 and 2008 and from the beginning of the Obama presidency openly state that their goal is not to compromise but to obstruct and give Obama his "waterloo" but somehow dems must move sharply to the right after they lost the house...

Where was all that "obeying the will of the american people" in 2006 and 2008 from republicans?

Crickets...

Dems continue to be spineless flatworms whether in power or out, while republicans set up camp in farrightwingnutistan when they are repudiated in consecutive elections and when they win them.

Posted by: srw3 | November 21, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"On the other hand (!!!!) if Murdoch concludes it is in his interests to have Palin run, then it's difficult to figure how things will go."

He won't, because it won't be, but it sure would be more fun if were wrong.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Recommendation to all: why not put anyone who dialogues with or quotes our troll on ignore as well?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 21, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline asked:

"Would Good Hair have an explanation for being so broke as a state that Texas can't afford to meet its obligations to its seniors?"

He ran on ads saying he had balanced the budget while the estimated shortfall was rising from $18B to $22B. Nobody noticed.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 21, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

As you know, I hope she runs and wins. The potential for the left coming apart both before and after is seriously appealing.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

I'm with you on that notion of blocking those who carry water for the troll. I feel like I'm being pursued by someone who speaks in tongues.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline wrote,
"a certain Governor whose particular political talent sits above his cranial epidermis?"
-------

Or a certain individual, creamed in his bid to become Governor, whose total lack of hair matches both his intelligence and his political talent. Or maybe it was just those silly voters voting against their own self interest again.

Posted by: Brigade | November 21, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

claw,

Palin running would have no effect on the left apart from wide eyes, silly grins and increased popcorn consumption.

If she decides she is going to use all the people like you to fight for the Republican party, the political conflagration could cause the sea level to rise enough to finally drown the Andamans.

Like you, I want her to fight the Republican sovereign wealth fund, the Republican investment firm of Rove, Barbour& Gillespie.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

""Would Good Hair have an explanation for being so broke as a state that Texas can't afford to meet its obligations to its seniors?" He ran on ads saying he had balanced the budget while the estimated shortfall was rising from $18B to $22B. Nobody noticed. Posted by: mark_in_austin "

So in the tradition of great B Western Movies he defeated the bad guys, balanced or didn't balance the budget, and his hat never fall off and his hair was never mussed up.

Just glad to see that the Randolph Scott version of Texas is still cranking out B Governance.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 21, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, even if she wins?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 6:58 PM

You are correct with most of what you are saying. However, the issues with any financial transactions taxes is that at any moment electronic trading can be moved to electronic exchanges in offshore havens. BVI, Panama, Bahamas, Dublin or even Isle of Man could line up for it. Then there is even less regulation.


_______________________


You have the idea with where to put the computers - however the idea is to get them as close as possible to Mahwah, New Jersey - which is the home of a wild band of descendents of Freed Slaves and Indians called the Jackson Whites who live in a mountainous area .


I know it sounds bizarre, but that is all true.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

srw3 at 7:09 PM


Well, my first reply to you is that Obama's platform in 2008 was all about bipartisanship and compromise - so that is what Obama promised. Compromise is Obama's sole mandate.


Well, the American People may have been tired of the war in Iraq and tired of all the harping on Bush, but neither of those things gave the democrats a mandate for ANY of their domestic agenda.

That claim was pretty bogus.


Your comment on "spineless flatworms" is pretty amusing. Can I use it going forward ?

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham | November 21, 2010 7:12 PM

Your comment is nothing less than "intent to harass"

You should be banned

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues | November 21, 2010 7:20 PM


Again, your comment amounts to "intent to harass" This is like your 50th comment with "intent to harass"

You should be banned.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 21, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

@shrink
Murdoch is more puzzling than the C of C. His business interests are far narrower (media) and not related to the energy or military sectors. So, for example, there's no immediate motive for him to push militarist adventures either for profits inherent in such (as is the case with corps like Boeing, Northup, Halliburton etc) or in order to maintain the profits of existing energy systems. He wants, mainly I think, an administration which will not seek to regulate media ownership so that he can further acquire and consolidate (and note, he's just cut a deal with Jobs to publish a paper for the iPad). Via media ownership, he has managed to move political events in several countries to his advantage and it wouldn't be far off to consider him the single most influential human on the planet. Which is, it seems, exactly what he wants.

I don't know what he's going to do in this case. Palin would be, if in office, the perfect figurehead for Murdoch just as she would be for the neconservatives. She has no grounding in history nor foreign policy and her political "philosophy" is a small patchwork of adopted slogans. And she would rely almost completely on established loyalties for decision-making. Such loyalties function just like cliches - they facilitate not having to think or weigh competing and complex ideas. That's why she's already wrapped herself so tightly in a small group of loyalists. And by the by, it's why Bush was also so dependent on loyalists. "I'm the decider" was a compensatory mental stance for the seriously overwhelmed fellow.

But the question is, can he get her there? I don't think so. And in the meantime, he can rack up the ratings and the dollars through using her to keep the FOX audience in a state of high resentment and stupidity. But, we'll see.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 21, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, we'll see if you ever start posting less frequently.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Relevant? There is not a socialist in the world who is relevant. America is dumping this ideology on the bones of others who espoused the need for socialist equality. Lennon; Communism; European Socialism all are on the dung heap of forgotten ideologies. Its to bad Obama, Reid/Pelosi have not read the end of book that would bring them back to reality. Democrat's have elected to join the ideology of class warfare and it is the coffin that they will be burried in. America utterly rejects the welfare state ideology. We are in the process of taking our country back; creating a republic with limited democratic powers is the goal of our forefathers and must be found again. 49% of Americans pay no taxes. Wealth redistribution is a relic of Lennon's ideology of the perfect world. That ideology is now a dung heap. Obama's reality check has yet to come. He needs a "come to Jesus or is it come to Muhammad moment" or get out of the WH before we throw him out.

Posted by: lhudson828 | November 21, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Bernie he is so successful because knows Talleyrand. You realize what is inevitable and you expedite. He does not care who wins, he does not do martyrs. Palin is already dead to Fox News.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, she was just on Fox News last week.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

It is true that Congress declined to approve the purchase of the airport scanners. Apparently Obama diverted stimulus money

This us a scandal. If the new Republican Congress wants to make an issue of it, there is certainly grounds

Obama seems to have been really loose with the spending and investigations may reveal more eye-popping diversions. Obama is clearly in trouble on these issues.

Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 21, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

@shrink: "Yes, so disproportionate in fact it could be argued to be a form of eugenics, as liberals look the other way."

Well, the political left embraced eugenics, back in the day. I'm prone to agree with your assessment, but there's also a question of where we rationally (and, without direct or serious detriment to society at large). Is there a difference between the morning after pill, later chemical inducement of a miscarriage, or even later term mechanical abortion?

I dunno. I would agree that, overall, it's better than society at all embrace a culture of life, and that should include the unborn. At the same time, I'm not sure simply outlawing abortions (not shrink's advocated position, at least as far as what I've read, I'm just extrapolating) accomplishes that.

A complicated issue, to be sure. Although I've always thought (from a strictly technical standpoint) Roe v. Wade should be over turned, and then (a) congress passes a law defining the legal parameters of abortion, (b) congress starts a constitutional amendment process to enshrine abortion in the constitution, or (c) legalization of abortion should be left to the state.

Not that that resolves that much, but it would at least no longer be a complicated issue resolved by judicial fiat.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 21, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

@nj12345: "Kevin Willis, I seriously can't thank you enough ..."

Sure you can. Send me some money!

Failing that, donate a few bucks to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. Or the Ron Clark Academy. Or something related to children's health or education. You don't have to wait until your taxes go up! ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 21, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You fail to realize that wars sell papers and increase tv ratings, which is quite direct

Murdoch is coming close to antitrust violations trying to get everyone to charge for websites.


Posted by: OrangeDogs | November 21, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

she was just on Fox News last week and Obama was too

Posted by: shrink2 | November 21, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "RedTeaRevolution, I agree that Obama should be impeached just as soon as we have 67 votes to convict in the Senate."

Well, to each their own. Let me remind you, during impeachment, Clinton's popularity (re: poll numbers) went up, and the Republicans went down. And they lost seats in a lameduck midterm where they should have gained.

Despite the further-left liberals who feel Obama would have been smart to have immediately focused on brining Bush and Cheney to account for his war crimes (and wanted Democrats to impeach Bush after 2006), Obama and the Dems have done the politically smart thing and done something other than focusing all their effort and energy and political capital on punishing their opposition.

An impeachment trial--even with a theoretical 67 vote to convict--will spell electoral doom for Republicans. Again, one of the question on the minds of many centrist and independent and moderate voters will be: um, this helps me get a job, how? This helps me pay the bills, how?

Politically, stupid, and at least some people who voted a straight Republican ticket this time around (like me!) would not consider an effort to impeach Obama a worthy expenditure their limited time.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 21, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama would be gone.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "At least Obama would be gone."

Well, I suppose, but then Biden would be president. The guy who wanted our response to 9/11 to be to cut a no-strings-attached check to Iran for $200 million dollars. So we'd have to impeach him, too. After which, we'd get whoever Biden appointed in the interim. Possible Nancy Pelosi? Or Hillary Clinton? Then we'd have to impeach them . . .

I'm not sure if you remember Al Gore or John Kerry, but Barack Obama is hardly the worst the Democratic party can do. I'd think the Republicans would do better to focus their energies on recapturing the Whitehouse via democratic election, myself.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 21, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Tangent: Yay, security theater!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news#

I'm so glad we nationalized airport screening and we've got the Department of Homeland Security. I feel so much safer to know that survivors of bladder cancer are being soaked in their own urine in order to protect us from terrorist attack.

For pity's sake.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 21, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi?! She's not in the line of succession starting January 3, 2011.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 21, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

She would be if Biden made her VP. And, if Obama was impeached, Biden would become president. He would need a Veep, just like Ford did after Nixon resigned, and so he would appoint one. That VP would then be next in line, should Biden get impeached. Thus, if he picked Pelosi as VP, and then was himself impeached, we'd get president Pelosi.

I just think there are more productive uses of elected Republicans time. Getting rid of Obama, again, replaces him with the guy who thought our best reaction to 9/11 was to write Iran a no-strings-attached check for $200 million. And, who knows, that might be the first thing he tries to do as president.

Impeaching Obama would be a huge waste of time and would solve nothing. Even if successful, which would be highly in doubt, even with 67 Republicans in the Senate. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Not if we impeach BOTH Obama and Biden, convict them together, and the Speaker of the House becomes President.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 22, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

lhudson828 at 9:48 PM

Do you know at what level Federal income taxes kick in ???


For instance, the lowest rate starts at a certain level. But on top of that there are certain standard deductions - so the break-even point is much higher.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

srw3 at 6:58 PM


Your attempt to make a point about stock markets in Somalia is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether offshore havens would become the site for stock trading should the markets in the existing financial centers become subject to transaction taxes.


However, there are stock markets in Somalia believe it or not.

One of the most interesting aspects of the piracy - the pirates were selling shares in their booty before they went to sea to attack a ship. Apparently, they needed to raise funds for the venture, and there were shares being sold.


Great story, especially for an Islamic country.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 12:14 AM

we are going to need you to come up with some charges against Biden.


Too bad pacifism is not an impeachable offense.

_______________________


I am intrigued by the Airport Scanners as a charge against Obama - the diversion of stimulus funds to a purchase which was previously rejected by Congress.

That is certainly an impeachable offense.


The 4th Amendment violations certainly qualify. Who gave Obama all this authority to sexually assault people? It really is outrageous.

Obama really appears to approach issues different from other people. Who knows what is going on there.

___________________


Remember that Obama extended same-sex benefits to Federal workers. Was that approved by Congress ??? That certainly is impeachable.

Obama does not have the power of the purse.

Congress does. Any diviation from that simple idea is impeachable.


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Well, and if we had a magic wand we could wave it and make gumdrops fall from the sky and all ride unicorns.

The president and the VP are not going to be successfully impeached simultaneously. The most likely reason to impeach Biden--gross incompetence in office--couldn't really even be established until he'd been president for a while.

And I don't think the general public would like the idea of the Republicans staging an impeachment-based coup any more than they like judges writing law from the bench.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse

I think the country would support the impeachment of Obama -

Obama has been ignoring the Economy for two years -

AND Obama's health care plan has placed a drag on the Economy and a drag on hiring.


So the idea that the public will not support impeachment because they want someone to concentrate on the Economy is a little nuts.


Obama isn't concentrating on the Economy now - so it's not like the American People are expecting him to work on the economy over the next few years - he just took two overseas trips since the election.


When is Obama going to get down to work???


Obama is already joking about making another trip to visit Chavez. Sounds like a trip to Tehran is next.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, it's possible that they both did something warranting impeachment.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 22, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

@RedTea: "I think the country would support the impeachment of Obama"

I'm dubious of that, but I'm pretty sure the country would not support a simultaneous impeachment of both Obama and Biden in order to get Boehner in the Oval Office.

"So the idea that the public will not support impeachment because they want someone to concentrate on the Economy is a little nuts."

No, it's really not. It will be the Republican leadership, day in and day out, focusing on whatever it takes to impeach Obama, rather than preventing or passing specific bits of legislation, or at least seeming to be actively trying to do something re: the people who elected them. "But we got rid of Obama", especially given the amount of time impeachment will probably take, will not be a compelling campaign slogan if not accompanies by a simultaneous increase in employment and GDP.

You know where spending bills come from. You know who has the power of the purse. Impeaching Obama would be just more political kabuki. And I think most of the Republicans in congress know that. Certainly, there are very little grounds to impeach Biden.

So a simultaneous impeaching of both President and VP (which has, btw, never happened) isn't going to happen now.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

@rtr:Well, my first reply to you is that Obama's platform in 2008 was all about bipartisanship and compromise - so that is what Obama promised. Compromise is Obama's sole mandate.

Sole mandate? Really? I'd like to see where obama stated that compromising with republicans was his sole mandate as president, but I know that you are notoriously parsimonious with your supportign material. Working with them, yes, but compromise means that both sides move toward a center not dems chasing a center moving constantly to the right.

Repubs said in public from the beginning that their goal was to break Obama, to make health care his waterloo, to hope that he fails, etc. They had and have no intention to compromise, and when 1 side does all the compromising, its called capitulation and Obama and the dems have moved close to this line on occasion.

Proposing the Dole, baker, daschle framework, chock full of republican ideas like the individual mandate and insurances exchanges was the soul of compromise, cutting back on the size of the stimulus--stupid as that act was--was compromise. There were all kinds of compromises toward republican stances on nuclear power, "clean coal" (like jumbo shrimp IMHO), etc. yet not one repub would sign on. Obama even weakened the financial regulations to appease repubs, but got virtually no support. The new start treaty is normally a bipartisan endeavor, but no longer...What possible reason could there be to not want inspectors on the ground? Richard Lugar is the only repub with even a tenuous grasp on reality on this issue. Obama hate among repubs is driving them to act against the best advice of the professional military and sec.s of state from the last 4 administrations. But can't let obama have a victory, no no no...

Posted by: srw3 | November 22, 2010 2:27 AM | Report abuse

@rtr:Remember that Obama extended same-sex benefits to Federal workers. Was that approved by Congress ??? That certainly is impeachable.

Man, get back on your meds...

Repubs, go for the impeachment! It did wonders for Clinton's popularity even after he did some pretty stupid things in his personal life...I'm positive that people really want 2 years of constant partisan investigations, instead of congress attending to fixing the economy and dealing with the foreign policy disaster left by the bushies (or climate legislation, energy legislation, infrastructure improvements, etc.)...really go for impeachment! Its a brilliant career move for any republican...

Posted by: srw3 | November 22, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Kevin Willis ... Done ... $50 to St. Jude's. Thanks again (and thanks for driving donations to such a worthy charity :)

Posted by: nj12345 | November 22, 2010 3:00 AM | Report abuse

re: impeachment...

Do it! Please.

Spend commmittee time on drafting Articles Of Impeachment.

Yes. Thats what we need. I saw a bumper sticker today saying, "Impeach Obama, our Country Depends On it" with a hammer and sickly. Heh.

Do it!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 22, 2010 3:59 AM | Report abuse

Kevin-

I'm losing respect for you daily. Unless, your "discussion" upthread about impeaching Biden is more irony...

If it is ironic, then cool. If not....


sad.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 22, 2010 4:03 AM | Report abuse

srw3 at 2:27 AM

Perhaps, just for that comment, I should have said sole remaining mandate.


There can be a whole discussion about what Obama's mandate was after the 2008 election. You can hear the rhetoric of the democrats before the election, you can hear what they said after - certainly two different things.

Perhaps "mandate" is more what the voters thought it was at the time, more than anything. Obama certainly twisted things around.


However, at the present time, the election has taken much of Obama's mandate away.

The Republicans have the mandate now. All the voters what Obama to do is cooperate with the Republicans. If Obama does not do that, he will be seen as hypocritical because that is what he promised to do in 2008, and Obama will certainly be thrown out of office. It is up to Obama to give the American People a reason to keep him, and confrontation is not it. At this point, Obama will not be re-elected and Obama is clueless as to how to turn that around.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Funny how the liberals who are talking about confrontation - when the Conservatives say that they will confront them back - the liberals start to say "that is not what the American People want."

Well, that is precisely what the Conservatives have been saying about Obama for the last two years - the American People did not want health care.


AND all of a sudden we are hearing that the democrats think that the people in Washington sould be concentrating on the economy.


Well, Obama went in front of Congress - in the biggest display of arrogance, said he did not come to Washington to do things like take care of the economy - and Obama was going to move onto putting a drag on hiring by doing the health care plan.


It was the most ridiculous display of arrogance and failure of policy in the HISTORY OF THE NATION. Obama has accomplished nothing. We have gone backwards. The health care plan has to be repealed - and whatever is put in its place needs to still be devised. Obama has contributed nothing.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Chuck in Denton


First of all, Obama and his administration has crossed the line on many issues, and he needs to be called out on them.

If Obama and the liberals are going to go for a policy of confrontation and gridlock, there is no reason that the Articles of Impeachment should not be drawn up in committee. At the very least, it may stop Obama from spending moneys for which he does not have clear authorization from Congress.


The benefits for same-sex people is clearly spending money without the approval of Congress.


Congress REFUSED to buy these airport scanners. All of a sudden, money was diverted from the stimulus and job creation and put into buying the scanners. All of a sudden, people are getting sexually assaulted at the airports in order to force them to go into the scanners.

This is a serious problem. It is amazing that Obama seems so pre-occupied with the civil rights of terrorists at trial - HOWEVER Obama doesn't give a hoot about the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens at airports - it certainly smacks of "Blame America for the terrorism" thinking.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 22, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Chuck:

"I'm losing respect for you daily."

Likewise, Chuck.

Why don't you clarify what you think it is I said? Because if you don't, I'm going to assume you were too lazy to do anything but read every other word, if that much, but not too lazy to make a comment about it. And thus don't actually have any kind of point at all--you just feel like telling people that you're losing respect for them. Which in itself may be meta-ironic.

"Unless, your 'discussion' upthread about impeaching Biden is more irony..."

Probably not in the sense you're thinking, but then, I can't be sure, because it's unclear what you think I was saying.

Or are you in support of impeachment? You think the simultaneous impeachment of a president and a VP is productive and/or possible? Or are you arguing that, in some mythical fantasy scenario where Obama is impeached, that Biden doesn't become president? Or that he wouldn't appoint a VP to replace him . . . or, what, exactly?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

@nj: "Kevin Willis ... Done ... $50 to St. Jude's. Thanks again (and thanks for driving donations to such a worthy charity :)"

Now, if everybody else using The Troll Hunter would do the same. ;)

They treat kids with cancer. And it's sometimes very, very expensive treatments. You get billed (of course), but if you can't pay, they don't every chase you down, turn you over to collections, or try and bankrupt you. And the children get the same high-quality of treatment, no matter what.

Danny Thomas was a good guy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

There are many people who have zero respect for you. You do not respect the First Amendment - and that is unAmerican.

Posted by: RedDogs | November 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

There's a post up above that epitomizes the state of things. This bit particularly...

"Lennon; Communism; European Socialism all are on the dung heap of forgotten ideologies."

At the very least, this political theorist ought to take a bit more time with The Big Lebowski. At least that.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

@RedDogs: "There are many people who have zero respect for you. You do not respect the First Amendment - and that is unAmerican."

I do indeed respect the first amendment. I refer you to the text, which gives you the right to free speech. It does not guarantee you any sort of right whatsoever to a captive audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Totally OT: Is Linux good with handling massive amounts of files? Because OS X and Windows both stink. Not that Linux is an option for me, right now. Just curious.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_136.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 22, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: Lennon; McCartney, Groucho Marxism. These are the ideologies that will be on the dirty clothes pile of history, waiting to be washed with the combined bleaching power of Lady Gaga and Dane Cook.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Not sure if this WP piece was noted earlier...

"An unusual split has opened between conservative Republicans and the American military leadership over the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, with current and former generals urging swift passage but politicians expressing far more skepticism.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) "essential to our future security." Retired generals have been so concerned about getting it ratified that some have traveled around the country promoting it.

Seven of eight former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces have urged the Senate to approve the treaty.

But five Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a recent report that New START was "a bad deal." They added that U.S. military leaders had made assumptions about the pact - including that Russia will honor it - that are "optimistic in the extreme."

Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation's grass-roots lobbying arm is targeting Republican senators with mailings warning that the treaty "benefits Russia's interests, not ours."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111906555.html

That "seven of eight former commanders of the US nuke forces" bit ought to make people saner even if Mullen is disregarded (but why disregard him?). But Heritage and the modern Republicans aren't involved in any project to make people saner, or more rational, or more knowledgeable. And the future consequences of that are a big unknown. But how could they be good?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 22, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

re: Dana Milbank: "They [Republicans] are objecting loudly to new airport security measures designed to detect bombs hidden under clothing"

Oh, come on. This is a Republican issue? Do Democrats (at leat according to Dana Milban?) really want to be on the side that says forcing a retired special ed teacher and bladder cancer survivor to disconnect his urostomy bag and get on the plain crying and soaked in his own urine is somehow protecting national security? That children need to having clothing removed and private parts "patted down" as a part of national security? Or that the "make you naked" scanners represent a significant increase in actual security, as opposed to "security theater"?

There are arguments to be made for the START treaty and against Republicans who are objecting, possibly for political goals rather than a real belief that it would somehow hamper our national security. But to suggest that what is now routinely happening with the TSA in regards to pat down, groping, and harassment (while suggesting the only exception may possibly be Muslim women, an exception CAIR is working diligently to carve out) but little boys and grandmas all get groped . . . Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, may not all fall next to each other on the issue, but I think some of this transcends strict ideology . . . or certainly will. And I've heard plenty of liberals characterize this nonsense as "security theater", not just right wingers.

"A CBS News poll found that 81 percent of Americans favor use of the new imaging machines"

I'm more supportive of that than the pat downs, but I list to a lot of podcasts, many of them technology or issues oriented, but still populated with left-of-center folks, and none of them are thrilled with the new x-ray system, and almost all of them oppose the crazy pat down regimen.

Re, Dana Millbank: "Pistole's response should shame Johanns and his colleagues."

First of all, I have a hard time believing (call it a false equivalency if you will) that Milbank would even begin to accept Pistole's response if everyone involved were Republican. If the increased screening required a little more attention paid to swarthy young men between the ages of 18 and 35, I have no doubt that response would do nothing to mollify Milbank's indignation.

"but Pistole, a career FBI guy, is still interested in the security of the American people"

I'm sorry, being a career FBI guy now makes him inarguably correct? Omnisciently infallible?

Am I off on this? Is this another partisan issue? Is harassing cancer survivors with ostomy bags and amputees (forcing them to undo their prosthetics and, in at least one case, hobble painfully through the x-ray machine unassisted) the price liberals things we have to pay for homeland security? Even if there is no indication that it actually does anything at all to enhance security? And may, in fact, drive more travel to the highway, resulting in more net deaths?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 22, 2010 10:11 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