Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:48 PM ET, 01/ 4/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Is Robert Gibbs on his way out of the White House?

* If so, Chris Cillizza notes, it could mean the Obama team thinks it's already time to get serious about reelection.

* Reality check of the day, from Jonathan Capehart: Obama's poll position is almost identical to that of Reagan, who roared back to reelection.

* Dem Rep. Peter Welch, who has been pushing for votes on repealing specific provisions of health reform, blasts GOP leaders for nixing amendments, claiming they're presiding over an "Alice in Wonderland" Congress.

* This is interesting: GOP Rep Michael Burgess of Texas vows that Republicans will launch investigations into some of the "new things that are happening to real people" as a result of health reform.

Good idea!

* Brian Beutler, on why House Republicans are exempting some of their policies from budget rules: "Many of their key policy goals will increase the deficit dramatically."

* Mitch McConnell shrewdly figured out early on that he absolutely had to deny Obama bipartisan support at all costs, lest the public decide his policies aren't so bad.

* Is it time for House Dems to play minority procedural hardball with the "motion to recommit"?

* One more time: Even if the House GOP repeal vote is a non-starter, the more important thing to keep an eye on is the GOP's long-term plan to bleed reform to death.

* But Dibgy is cautiously optimistic that Dems will fight repeal with all they've got:

Indeed, it will be the one thing that both the administration and the Senate will fight to the death to preserve --- it is Obama's most important legacy and the Democrats spilled a lot of blood to get it through.

* Despite some earlier chatter to the contrary, Joe Lieberman is all but certain not to run for reelection as a Dem.

* As Atrios notes, another potential problem with Bill Daley as White House chief of staff is that the person in that position has a "great degree of control over the people their bosses see and the information they hear."

* Tuesday comic relief: GOP Rep. Pete King thinks opposition to his plan for Congressional hearings into the radicalization of Muslims is just a bunch of "political correctness."

* And the coinage of the day, from Dave Weigel: "The Palin Tweet index."

That would be the ratio of the number of words in each Sarah Palin Tweet to the amount of words in "news" stories about the Tweet in question.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 4, 2011; 6:48 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House Dems, House GOPers, deficit  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP to invite Dems to join in reading of the Constitution
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

To All the Liberals:

To all who claimed that homosexuals in the military "would not affect readiness."


WRONG AGAIN

The Navy officer is already embroiled in a controversy over political correctness.


Don't ask, Dont Tell should be put back in.


ALREADY THERE IS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER SET TO GO TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND A GAY CONTROVERSY IS AFFECTING THE DEPARTURE OF THAT AIRCRAFT CARRIER.


It is over


The liberals have been proven wrong and this too has to be repealed.


The liberals LIED again and again.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama ain't Ronald Reagan (more like Jimmy Carter, if you ask me).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 4, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Mitch McConnell shrewdly figured out early on that he absolutely had to deny Obama bipartisan support at all costs, lest the public decide his policies aren't so bad."

Right. Because as everyone knows, the measure of a policy's "goodness" isn't what it does, but rather how many congressmen support it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 4, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Greg

The

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"Right. Because as everyone knows, the measure of a policy's "goodness" isn't what it does, but rather how many congressmen support it.

Posted by: ScottC3"

The measure of a policy's goodness is actually how well Republicans can convince people it is out to kill grandma, right?

By the way, have you people figured out which of the policies passed in the last two years led to the $1.7 trillion deficit in 2010?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Greg

The policies of the Republicans "aren't so bad" either.


Especially if one removes the haze of the hate speech coming from the democrats which surrounds everything.


The Bush tax cuts - in the end the Obama people were fighting like mad to keep them (so they could try to claim some victory)


What a laugh


I think McConnell even got Obama to roll over as a part of the deal. HA

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually kind of glad that the extremist Republican party is back in power in the House.


I think it's good for Americans to be reminded of exactly why it is that they hate Republicans every couple of years.


Pres Obama and the Dems will go even high in the polls as Republicans announce what they plan to cut out of discretionary spending: $100 Billion (big deal, that's twenty-five weeks in Iraq 20% cuts, but just 2.5% cut out of the $1.5 Billion House budget).


And Republicans want to repeal HC reform with no replacement and they refuse to give up their Life Time Gold Plated Health and Pension Benefits.


See ya in 2012, Teabaggers!

.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 4, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Gov Ed Rendell would be a stupendous chief of staff. He is the best, calmest, most thrilling spokesperson the Dems have now. He is the only possible anti-luntz. (Luntz is a once in a thousand years propaganda evil genius with the perfect perfect pitch for the compelling non-elite word or phrase. Rendell, a better angels guy, is close to as good, for good. Luntz does dog-whistle; Ed Rendell does whale song.)

Gotta say my "Mz Palin will spend 2011 in relentless pursuit of her freedom of screech" ought to win the coin of the day??!!! Freedom of screech & free screech are the trez trez drollissimo.

Posted by: wendyf | January 4, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote,
"Reality check of the day, from Jonathan Capehart: Obama's poll position is almost identical to that of Reagan, who roared back to reelection."

---

Reality check indeed.

I enjoy the way people spin things. I also enjoy golden oldies. Below is an exchange which occurred on the Fix about six months before the November election, when I had the temerity to wonder whether it might be a bad year for Dems.

I've omitted the reams of statistics the awesome kreuz used to support his prediction. "Noacoler" is the poster we know here at Plum Line as "caothien9".

A demonstration of what happens when
realty checks are provided:

=======================================

There was an interesting article by Susan Page in today's USA TODAY that should help anyone trying to assess what will happen this November in House swing districts:

"Since 1962 . . . in the five midterms held while a president's approval had dropped below 50%, his party suffered calamitous results, losing an average of 41 seats. That's one seat more than the Republicans need to win back the House this year."

Posted by: Brigade | April 29, 2010 7:41 PM

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

Obama has been most compared, in electoral performance, poll ratings, and achievements to either Carter or Reagan depending on your perspective, both suggesting this would be like 1978 or 1982, with a loss of between 15 and 26 seats; electorally, we are much closer to 2006 in terms of specific seats in play and nature of the political environment, suggesting a loss around 30 seats.

In reality, history won't be much of a guide because the dynamics of this election are being much more closely scrutinized than anything before the 1994 election, national resources on both sides are being targeted in known areas of trouble to minimize election day surprises, and regional polarization combined with gerrymandering and control of various media markets will likely make this more like 2006 than anything prior.

When you look at the numbers, more than 30 seats is truly an outlier in modern elections, and I don't think we'll be in that boat this year.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 29, 2010 8:42 PM

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

@kreuz,

You are awesome. The king of stats.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | April 29, 2010 8:50 PM

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

smashin' good post, kreuz, outstannin'

Posted by: Noacoler | April 29, 2010 9:03 PM

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

tsk. tsk. tsk.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Okay, place your bets.

I'm betting that "DrainYou" is Ethan's version of Rainforest.

"Is Robert Gibbs on his way out of the White House?"

I will pray tonite to the Soledad cross that this is true.

Posted by: sbj3 | January 4, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

By the way, have you people figured out which of the policies passed in the last two years led to the $1.7 trillion deficit in 2010?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 7:10 P

----

Gee, I dunno. We certainly can't place any reponsibility at the feet of those who've controlled the White House and both houses of Congress by huge majorities during that time period.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou wrote,
"I'm actually kind of glad that the extremist Republican party is back in power in the House."

---

I'm glad, too, scissorbill. I think most of the libs here at Plum Line are glad. I'm not so sure they didn't plan it that way all along---you know, just to teach the voters a lesson.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne pecked,
"Obama is a Republicrat through and through ... The only question is whether Democratic Regulars will stand for a Dem Pres doing what they would never permit a Repub to do."

---

Like they permitted Clinton NAFTA, DADT, Welfare Reform, Glass Steagall repeal, etc.?

This is a test. How many people doubt that wbgonne will be here (or somewhere) in 2012 imploring everyone to vote for Obama? I mean after he figures out that the alternative would likely be a (gasp) Republican. And Obama knows this. That's why he pays no mind to people like wbgonne.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

By all means, 'critter Burgess, try and get someone to testify that doesn't agree with you. In fact, since he's mine, I'll challenge him to the task. He's a reasonable, bipartisan guy, right?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 4, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

fiona5 wrote,
"'True the Vote' - a teabagger movement, is going national in 2012, a concerted effort to intimidate and repress the black vote. You will be hearing more and more of this--disenfranchising minorities is a major pillar of Republican strategy for 2012."

---

LOL. Hearing more and more? That's all we've been hearing for years. According to the liberal peanut gallery, there's rarely been an election won by a Republican that wasn't somehow stolen by repressing the black vote. Remember 2000? A black man being dragged behind a pick-up? The NAACP ad?

By the way, here's another test for you: Remember the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2000? Was his last name spelled G O R E or B U C H A N A N?
If the Republicans hadn't used mind bending microwaves and cell phone towers to make sure voters in Florida couldn't tell the difference, well...you just don't know what might have happened.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"* And the coinage of the day, from Dave Weigel: "The Palin Tweet index."
That would be the ratio of the number of words in each Sarah Palin Tweet to the amount of words in "news" stories about the Tweet in question.
What else is happening?"

Well, you kept your integrity intact.  You did not mention Palin. 

Wait... What?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"Reality check of the day, from Jonathan Capehart: Obama's poll position is almost identical to that of Reagan, who roared back to reelection."

Well, that may be so BUT Obama and his wife and this White House will be going forward without the important aid and advice from a top-drawer astrologer...

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

Posted by: bernielatham | January 4, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"At 69, Mr. Cheney’s heart will never beat at full strength again, doctors say." NYT

They are probably Democrats.

But wow. His Princely Darkness sure doesn't look like he'll be lunging any more war horses.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011

--------

Will this happen to Rushbo too, I mean so that when he stands up he won't still be wider than he is tall? Will Rush too be forced to lose so much weight he'll be able to walk in the snow and leave footprints?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011

-------

Speaking of people with a history of heart problems, how's Slick Willie these days? He looked a bit peaked the last time I saw him.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

You don't need Democrats talking about GOP/Right wing voter suppression-you just need some of your own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Who do you think he's talking about? Don't think too hard that your brain will melt down.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 4, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Great point Bernie!

Do you really need an astrologer to ramp up a war?  To slaughter civilians with Predator drones?  To continue Renditions?  To continue indefinite detention?  What about making Signing statements.  Wall street bailouts?

Yup Bernie, we sure dodged a bullet with that one. No astrology no how.  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Of course the Afghanistan war isn't worth it. The only reason Bush went there was to boost his self-esteem an' call hisself a war persident.

And of course the Caspian pipeline dint have nuttin' t'do wiffit.

But he got away wiffit 'cause American thirst for blood needed to be slaked. After that alleged terrorist attack

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011
-------

Every once in awhile, the curtain just falls away and caothien9's true beliefs come to the fore. He's a truther and thinks Bush invaded Afghanistan for show, obviously with no Democratic support, and all to get hold of the Caspian pipeline. Throughly deranged.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

You don't need Democrats talking about GOP/Right wing voter suppression-you just need some of your own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Who do you think he's talking about? Don't think too hard that your brain will melt down.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 4, 2011 8:00 PM

---------

If it melted enough, maybe I could better communicate with you. I don't need to chase links; I already agree. I've never known a Republican worth his salt who didn't want to drag a black man behind a pickup at least once.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I can't stand Bill Clinton, never could. But he is tough. Hilary never did dump him. We'll see. Life plays out plenty of rope (unless God had some other plan for you, you know, like kids with horrible genetic...oh "skip" it...).

It would be fun to have a partisan battle on heart health, a disgusting fat slob drops dead after drawing $$ off the insurance pool pool. It would be even more fun if we didn't actually do it.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Looky, a new gilded age. I'll bet reading the Constitution will make the "free" market work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/dining/reviews/05rest.html?hp

What to do with too much money, that question matters to the demigods.

You have to use your imagination. Not really, history has been written. You have to barf so you can eat more.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

This is actually sort of weird because my husband came up with this idea over the weekend, let the old farts like us retire and turn things over to the younger crowd. They need the jobs.

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

"In the United States, the financial crisis has left the country with 11 million fewer jobs than Americans need now. No matter how aggressive the policy, we are not going to find 11 million new jobs soon. So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?

The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer.

A proposal like this could transform a miserable jobs picture into a tolerable one, at a single stroke."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,7

Posted by: lmsinca | January 4, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

IMO Hillary never did and never will dump Bill for three reasons. One, she wasn't interested in him for his body, two, as long as he was discreet she didn't care what he did and three, she could take full advantage of his success to achieve her own.

Posted by: actuator | January 4, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

imsinca wrote,
"The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work?"

------

And two years down the road the politicians inform you that they can't afford to continue paying full benefits---they had to spend the money elsewhere--- and that your medicare costs will skyrocket. Good luck getting your job back.

Posted by: Brigade | January 4, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca, I know a number of people who don't want to stop working because they love to work. They probably wouldnt be happier. Will they be forcibly retired?

Posted by: actuator | January 4, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Greg

RE: Black Panthers case


So, according to your lack of logic, it is OK with you if white men with weapons stand in front of places where blacks vote ???


Just want to make sure what you find acceptable.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

actuator,

I'm in that group that won't retire really either, it was just an idea and it was a three year window for people who want to retire with full benefits at 62. I don't even know if it's a good idea or not, it's just that there's so many young people anxious to get into the work force and so few jobs, it might be worth considering. I'm pretty sure it will never get off the ground though, most good ideas remain ideas.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 4, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"...she could take full advantage of his success to achieve her own."

Feminism is stuck on this cusp. I believe Hilary would have beaten Obama had she dumped Bill, but her strongest supporters claimed that was not possible, evidently she agreed, America was not ready and so on.

So we went with that colored guy with the Islamic middle name and beat not just The Clintons, but McCain/Palin, as an afterthought, kicked them to the curb.

Do liberals learn? The TP faction of the Republican Party (the plain old base) sure did. Tonight I heard Sean Hannity talking of the Tea Party Republicans, as if it were perfectly obvious.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

So the states facing critical budget deficits are going after public employee labor unions as a solution. In an astonishing turn of events, labor organization has been one of the financial caste's pet peeves for decades.

The ree's root system is rotten with fungus? Trim off the leaves.

But no matter what we do, for heaven't sake, let the wealthy keep all "their money," so they'll invest in America and create jobs.

Real soon now. Really!!

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Greg might as well have written...

Mitch McConnell was shrewdly incapable of ignoring the obvious. Historians will puzzle for months, perhaps weeks, or even days how he was able to decide again that destroying Obama was the only possible way Republicans could hold up their edifice, that as if they cared about people who are lucky enough to work for a living.


out early on that he absolutely had to deny Obama bipartisan support at all costs, lest the public decide his policies aren't so bad.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Actually Obama has HIGHER approval ratings than Reagan had at this time of his presidency. Reagan's poll numbers got as low as 35% in January of his third year which is much lower than Obama's which is mid to high 40's and even reaching 50% in Gallup.

But poll numbers now don't mean a thing. What will matter for Obama is the ECONOMY. If the economy is creating jobs then Obama will be fine. If it is not then he will be in trouble.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 4, 2011 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Cao, thank goodness you're here!

What states are going after the public sector unions?

Hey, Kevin_Willis asked you earlier but I didn't see your response. On this mornings Morning Plum, you wrote:

"But he got away wiffit 'cause American thirst for blood needed to be slaked. After that alleged terrorist attack."

Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Curious as to the word "alleged" that you used.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

But poll numbers now don't mean a thing. What will matter for Obama is the ECONOMY. If the economy is creating jobs then Obama will be fine. If it is not then he will be in trouble.

==

And therein lies the foundation of Republican strategy .. do everything possible to assure that the economy sinks. That won't be hard for them, of course, all they have to do is what comes naturally to them.

Trust in the free market, cut spending, favor the wealthjy, sit on their hands and wait for the magical genie of the marketplace who grants all wishes.

It's really in the Democrats' court now; full control of the Congress and White House is theirs to lose. All they need do is stop capitulating, start fighting, and get the god damned message out loud and clear. Early indications they're beginning to learn.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone doubt that we have some paid conservative disruption trolls here? We know they exist, and the indefatiability and peristence of I need' name is only explained by extreme idleness or renumeration.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Dude, I've admitted it before. I'm on Rove's payroll. Double sawbuck a post, my brother. Ca-ching! All in the furtherence of the nefarious torture agenda of my Dark Lord, Cheney. (Chaos Be Upon Him)

Again, if it's not too much trouble, and from what I can see, your directness is one of your most noteworthy attributes, what was with using the word "alleged" in reference to terrorist attacks?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 10:13 PM | Report abuse

"Is Robert Gibbs on his way out of the White House?"

I will pray tonite to the Soledad cross that this is true.

==

Who knows or cares? He's a press spokesman fer chrissake.

More interesting question: how quickly will the Republicans sabotage their recent gains? My guess is, faster than ever. They've never had a black president to get them too riled to think carefully before.

But I won't "pray" for this. I dont believe in the supernatural.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone doubt that we have some paid conservative disruption trolls here? We know they exist, and the indefatiability and peristence of I need' name is only explained by extreme idleness or renumeration.

Posted by: caothien9"

Nah, these people are willing to do this for free. They are so desperate to be a part of this club of Conservatives that they will just spout whatever the hell Sean Hannity tells them to say or Sarah Palin tweets on facebook.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Brigade | January 4, 2011 7:21 PM


________________


Fastastic to dig all that up


OR have you saved it?

Excellent take-down. Also shows what 12Bar and Cao are all about

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

"Nah, these people are willing to do this for free. They are so desperate to be a part of this club of Conservatives that they will just spout whatever the hell Sean Hannity tells them to say or Sarah Palin tweets on facebook."

Dang, spot on peeps! It's how we get our Merit Badges.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/dining/reviews/05rest.html?hp

and this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/world/americas/05ants.html?hp

It is a "free" market. Those people who can't get enough ants to eat, they'd better not stand in the way of progress. That would be class war, and that war is always over.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

"Clashing narratives over the case of a 36-year-old Palestinian woman who died on Saturday is fast making her a new symbol of the enduring conflict here, with the Israeli military anonymously casting doubt on Palestinian accounts — backed by medical documents — that she died from inhaling tear gas."

"narratives"

Making this or that dead captured, tortured, neglected...

This is something the [insert passive noun like crisis with adjectives or adverb complexes like desperately seemingly intractable etc. label here] trades. It trades in death and suffering. It draws money into itself by trading suffering and killing.

I'm not saying they will stop killing if the money stops, I am saying they will kill even more if the money stops.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 4, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

ddawg...Hey!

Saw your note upthread.

Since you got confused and took Mr. Obama's TreasSec for a Conservative Thing last night (You should really work on your "reading the link" skills)...I've put some ruff numbers together that will flush out the budget categories in deficit that were 100% Dem budget programs (as stipulated by Mr. Geithner, who did not, I must add, attribute TARP to Mr. Obama...giggle).

2008 Non-Def Discretionary -- $434Billion
2010 Non-Def Discretionary -- $578Billion
Plus ARRA -- $353Billion

If you need to find out what Non-Def Discretionary is, well, you got yourself your own little challenge.

Soooooo we're looking at approx half-a-$Trillion w/ Non-Def bumped by a cool 25%.
Just in case you need reminding, these things were not supported by, uh, Paul Ryan, for example.

Oh, and then there's the AfPak Surge bucks, I know ya'll love that. BTW: Obama using Iraq dollars, that will never be used, for his bullskite/lyingbastahd Def baseline is naughty.

{{{Sorry re: belated response, got home from work at 9ish, good ole NYState makes you knock out 10-12 hrs/day in the private sector so our 55 year-old retired trash collectors can pull their $75K/yr pensions and full medical/dental until they die and go to the BigLandfill.}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Where the hell do you get non-defense discretionary=Obama's fault?

Like, you understand that laws passed before Obama's presidency go up in cost by themselves, right?

This is why I'm asking for specific laws. Just because Medicare Part D is costing more in 2010 than it did in 2008 doesn't mean that Obama signed it into law.

So yeah, keep looking or keep making stuff up. We are looking for specific laws that Obama passed. Got it?

Anyone see the Jon Stewart sendup of the RNC chair debates? It would be like watching a debate of the Conservatives having a debate on here.

Only difference is that they actually have some tangible gain from saying Conservative Things.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Tao

Just cut the budget until the deficit is about 100 Billion


Stop the borrowing


SAVE THE NATION


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 4, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny ha-ha that the righty bedwetters think Paul Ryan is some sort of Idea Man.

But then they also think George Will is an intellectual and Tim LaHaye is a man of God.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"...Palestinian accounts — backed by medical documents..."

Ah, yes:

Medecines sans moralité

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

So yeah, keep looking or keep making stuff up. We are looking for specific laws that Obama passed. Got it?

==

Obviously he doesn't Get It and he'll never Get It.

Getting It would mean thinking outside the strict orthodoxy of Conservative Things.

Love the resentment of public worker pensions. What an outrage that the trash collector didn't have a nice coronary trying to pick up a can mischieviously loaded with rocks by some kids of conservative parents.

Poor fellow, having to actually work. Unfair! Republicans should be supported by hardworking Blue Staters.

Oh wait, they are.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

"But then they also think George Will is an intellectual "

No one here is equal to your intellect, least of all me. :-(

By the way, are you a "Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen" Truther? Or more along the lines of "Empty planes hit the Towers which were then brought down by demolitions planted previously and a missle hit the Pentagon?" Or just one of the Ventura like "Just asking questions?"

Thanks buddy! ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 4, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

ddawg,

Get a grip...Medicare Part D is manda-friggin'-tory bro!

Non-Defense Discretionary is exactly what was intitiated by the Democratic controlled Congress in 2010...in other words LAWS.

Actually it was merely the 6-15% increases that kicked automatically (via voice vote often, thnx Nancy!!) in virtually every Non-DefDisc program from the 2009 Budget...

...because the Dems didn't have the balls to pass a 2010 Budget.

What do you think the (failed, heh) Lame Duck Omnibus was for, Norma?

For such a tight/bun/beehive fauxwonk ya'll don't know much.

Posted by: tao9 | January 4, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes we should always accept the Israeli government's explanations. It's not like they ever lie or anything.

Like that flotilla raid, where they say they were shot at when all they were doing was coming in stealthily from helicopters for a polite social call.

So they support a settler movement of religious psychotics who steal land and they shoot little boys in the back from helicopters, I mean, boys will be boys.

The important thing is they're our ally and they're a democracy just like we are.

(pause)

Drink up, folks, this shịt's a lot funnier when you're drunk. I'll be here all week.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 4, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting.

And you still have a hell of a ways to go to get to 1.7 trillion.

The thing you pointed out was about 0.15 trillion ARRA gives you 0.35

So you can have 0.5 trillion

Still got a way to get to $1.7 trillion. You're almost 1/3 of the way to putting this all on Obama. You can do it!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Stanley Fish argues coherently against Internet anonymity:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/?ref=opinion

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

@ddawg

"Can you spell that please, Alec?"

"m-a-n-d-a-t-o-r-y"

"Can you put that in a sentence please,
Alec?"

"Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and debt interest are examples of mandatory spending, approximtely 18%, in the Federal Budget."

"Uhhhh...."

"m-a-n-d-a-t-o-r-y"

"Can I call my lifeline in Linh Dong?"

"You sure, you lost your ass last time?"

"Uhhhh....."

Posted by: tao9 | January 5, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Looks like he's getting colder, DDAWD

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it's 'cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Posted by: tao9 | January 5, 2011 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Your responses have been functionally incoherent, toa9, but now you've completely lost control of your saliva

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps, but at least I know where mine's been.

You have no power here! Begone, little HoPuppet, before somebody drops a hut on you, too!

Posted by: tao9 | January 5, 2011 12:43 AM | Report abuse

None of us have any "power" here, fool, why don't you lay off the Pabst for the rest of the day

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Cao, I don't think I'm speaking just for myself when I write that you've put on quite an unprecedented display (no offense DDAWD)! It's been fascinating.

But I've noticed you still haven't fully fleshed out, for you fans here (and I'm one of them), your meaning of the use of the word "alleged" as a qualifier to "terrorist attacks." I've not noticed an inclination on your part to shy away from any controversy, so I'm sure it's just an oversight. So, I thought I'd ask again about it. Look, if your afraid to discuss your true opinion on the subject of 9/11, I understand, as well as find that even more interesting.

Thanks in advance friend.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 5, 2011 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Troll, if you still believe that everything is on the up and up after Atta's unburned passport was found in the rubble coming from a plane who collision developed temperatures high enough to vaporize steel, then you are so lacking in incredulity that nothing I can write will pass the conspiracy-crazy sniff test.

And, one other little thing .. I simply can't bring myself to believe that after decades of hair-trigger Cold War readiness nobody could do anything about that plane on its way to the Pentagon. No, I just don't believe it.

Nor in the coincidence that the absurd threats made to the Taliban in August become credible ones just in time.

Nope. Not buying it. You shouldn't either. It's all too goddamned fishy. And I'm not talking about thermite.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Cao,

Thanks for the info.  You answered my questions.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 5, 2011 1:17 AM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed with Brigade.

There are many Mr. Weyrich would like to disenfranchise.

Maybe Brigade should chase "those links". He might learn something.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 5, 2011 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Dunno why you don't just put Brigade on Troll Hunter. He's a prurient bigot a terribly limited rhetorical arsenal, a few childish retorts and that's it.

Back in the 60s when the real polarization began between long-haired protestors with long hair (the kind Brigade celebrated being gunned down at Kent State) and crewcut guys waving little flags (the lapel pins were in the future), the Conservative Thing of the day was "America: Love It Or Leave It." Ahem.

We used to laugh at how things would play if the protesters had indeed left .. the schisming would continue (and it has), each remaining group more hyperpatriotic than the last, until finally there was one red-eyed buzz-cut guy with a pickup truck and a moustache walking the empty streets of Sioux Falls or Omaha caressing a rifle butt, chanting over and over .. love it or leave it ... love it or leave it ... love it or leave it ...

Turns out to have been, but for the departures, not far from how things turned out. Now the only True Americans are subnormal illiterates with long lists of groups of people they hate.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 5:38 AM | Report abuse

Some of you Keyboard Kommandos who genuflect to Reagan might take a look at the unemployment statistics on his "watch." As if any of you have any use for data.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 6:01 AM | Report abuse

OK, I wrote "long-haired protestors with long hair."

Can't pass this off as an iPad auto correct.

At least I didn't use "your" for "you're."

Posted by: caothien9 | January 5, 2011 6:13 AM | Report abuse

caothien9:
"nothing I can write will pass the conspiracy-crazy sniff test."
-------

LOL. Totally unconscious.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:41 AM | Report abuse

When Obama was in the Senate he voted against raising the debt ceiling. What's his position now? I suppose it would still be unconscionable.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:44 AM | Report abuse

they will just spout whatever the hell Sean Hannity tells them to say or Sarah Palin tweets on facebook.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 4, 2011 10:20 PM
-------

These poor souls are much more interested than any conservative about what Sean and Sarah have to say. There are only so many hours in a day---when do they watch Ed, Rachel, Lawrence, and Keith to get the "true" Republican agenda?

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:
"Anyone see the Jon Stewart sendup of the RNC chair debates?"
-------

See what I mean? When this dolt's not watching TV he's posting liberal gibberish on message boards. Either he's lost his job or there are lots of overflowing bed pans and dirty butts in some New Orleans healthcare facility.

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:52 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising:
"Fantastic to dig all that up
OR have you saved it?"
-------

If you know a moniker and a recognizable snippet of nonsense you can just Google it with WashingtonPost and Fix and ... bingo!

Posted by: Brigade | January 5, 2011 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Only 3 hours and 50 minutes left until Big Boner cries again.

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

Posted by: paul65 | January 5, 2011 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Barack H. Obama accomplished what the great, Ronald Reagan failed to do. Obama has made conservatives the largest, ideological group in America. It's an amazing achievement.

I now dub B.O. the bizarro world Reagan. That would be Reagan in reverse. Reagan tried to gently convince Americans that conservativism was best for America.

Obama simply scared them into that belief. Kinda like shock treatment.

That bodes ill for the Obamanation in 2012. Obama may get half his wish to be a good, one-term president.

I know which half. I'm sure everybody else does too.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 5, 2011 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Since when does a gay man not recognize Glinda's "Begone" line, jestfully cited??!!?!!?

{{{& then sputter on re: "power" on the innerethertubes}}}

I think thaiStiktruther is straight!!!

Alert the Navy!

Posted by: tao9 | January 5, 2011 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Rewriting Lincoln as modern corporations would have preferred his famous speech to be written... "government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations".

"Last month a senior House Republican, Representative Darrell Issa of California, nevertheless dispatched letters to 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that are restraining economic recovery and job growth."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/business/economy/05letters.html?hp

It's not quite correct to claim that the modern version of conservatism represented by this Republican party holds or believes that "government is bad". The more accurate claim would be that "government *of the people is bad*".

Somebody has to fill the various government functions of composing and policing laws and codes, and determining and collecting and dispersing taxes. For Republicans, now, that someone cannot be allowed to be citizens broadly nor anyone representing citizens' interests broadly. So the functions of government (as properly differentiated from the show or facade of government) have to be placed in the hands of precisely those corporate interests who - by their own codes and legal regimes - to forward their own selfish interests above or in opposition to the broader interests of the nation's citizens.

If citizens are getting sick from pollution or from health and safety violations in, say, food processing and pass (through their elected representative) laws and codes to eliminate or minimize such tragedies, those laws and codes are precisely what modern Republicans wish eliminated - because they work a "hardship" on corporate profit margins. Citizens are not the Republicans' constituency. Corporate interests are.

Issa is merely one example out of many who demonstrate this to be incontrovertibly so.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 5, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Mike Tomasky...

"Having taken control of the House of Representatives as of tomorrow, Republicans now have to govern. They have to do things like make a budget. And not just a fake budget, like in a campaign. A real budget, that adds up, more or less. They have to negotiate with a Senate still in Democratic hands over the final shape of appropriations to the various federal agencies. All that sounds suspiciously like hard work. And Washington Republicans, for all their thumpety-thump rhetoric about hard work and personal initiative and so on, are largely lazy and unserious people. They won't do the work, and in two years, it will show.

How can I say that? Alas, recent history bears it out. When I say lazy I don't mean that they fail to arise from bed. They manage that. I mean intellectually lazy. And yes, unserious. Let's look at the last three Republican presidents, going back to 1980. In that time Republicans have been screaming about the budget deficit. So what did they actually do to fix it? Ronald Reagan opened up a gaping hole, which was somewhat repaired from its worst point by the time he left office but was still far larger than that of Jimmy Carter, his predecessor. On the whole, Reagan lost America $81bn. Think that's a lot? George HW Bush cost the country $135bn. Think that's a lot? His son cost us – get ready – $632bn. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, made us $526bn.

Most liberals call this hypocrisy, and it is that. But it's something even worse than hypocrisy. It's complete and utter lack of seriousness about governing..."

Quoting another, Tomasky adds...

"Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: if you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/04/republicans-good-theatre-dreadful-governing

Posted by: bernielatham | January 5, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who's been watching Israel's actions and policies in Gaza and other occupied territories will be completely unsurprised by this headline from Ha'aretz this morning...

"WikiLeaks: Israel aimed to keep Gaza economy on brink of collapse

Cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv says Israeli officials wanted Gaza's economy 'functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.'"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-israel-aimed-to-keep-gaza-economy-on-brink-of-collapse-1.335354

Along with the jailing and targeted assassinations of key leaders, the goal of this policy has been to prevent Palestinians from successfully organizing themselves into any sort of cohesive, effective or strong society. If they are kept weak, they are far easier to manipulate and oppress.

As I've noted before, the US constitution correctly defends the rights of assembly/speech because it is only through such means that citizens can organize and thus become significant players in the rule of a nation. Where we see attempts to prevent or destroy citizen-originated organizing (eg unions, protest activities, political activism, etc) we are always or almost always seeing some existing power structure which is actively working to keep citizens or some set of citizens from threatening that structure's hold on power and dominance.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 5, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

" Reality check of the day, from Jonathan Capehart: Obama's poll position is almost identical to that of Reagan, who roared back to reelection."
------------------------------------------
Reality check. Reagan didn't ~18% unemployment. ROFLMAO @ low IQ libs.

Posted by: illogicbuster | January 5, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

It looks like the stage is set for some new budget rules and making Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan the new KING of discretionary spending. We've all heard their goal is to go back to levels of 2008 which would save about 100b, although there are some rumors that they may adjust that back to 50-60b. One of the really interesting bits of information that comes from the new rules is that they will also be exempting certain deficit increasing measures from their own rules.

Below are a couple of links explaining how this works.

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

"Because Democrats didn't pass a budget, and because spending authority expires in early March, there's a strong chance that the government will run out of money before the House and Senate agree to new spending levels. When that happens, under the new House rules, spending will continue -- but at levels no higher than those chosen by the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan.

As soon as those rules are adopted on Wednesday, Ryan's spending levels will be considered -- or "deemed" -- adopted by the full House as if they'd passed a budget with a floor vote. The legislative language in the rules package holds that Ryan's spending limits, "shall be considered as contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011 and the submission thereof into the Congressional Record shall be considered as the completion of congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/demon-pass-how-the-new-house-rules-are-like-the-slaughter-solution.php

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

"To get around this fact, they've included measures in their new rules package to exempt some of their biggest legislative priorities from deficit consideration. Among the exceptions, which the House is likely to consider in the 112th Congress, are the health care repeal bill (scheduled for a vote a week from Wednesday), the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, an AMT patch, extending the estate tax, and more."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/gop-exempts-deficit-busting-policies-from-new-budget-rules.php

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Sate versus Market Capitalism, which I know as Cold War 2.0, is on and it is absolutely fascinating.

...bits of news today...

The World Bank has issued its first bond denominated Yuan.
China is test flying its very own stealth fighter plane.
World food prices have reached a record high (thanks to ethanol flowing into gas tanks).

Then, if you want to dive into the weeds on the future of market capitalism, check out the comments under this piece.

http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2010/12/22/the-most-important-graph-of-the-year/


But now for the good news about market capitalism

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_160.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 5, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Joshua Holland has an overview of what new rules and cuts will mean to all of us. I had a discussion yesterday with a couple of our conservative regulars and we were STILL debating tax cuts for our wealthier citizens, not sure why since they got them, and the idea of shared sacrifice. Living in a state with a pretty big budget shortfall we've seen lots of sacrifices for the working class with even a Dem. Governor proposing more cuts across the board, affecting public employees, the unemployed, the poor and the sick, city services, seniors, police and fire departments, etc. etc. Most of the sacrificing is being done at the lower levels of the economic spectrum and it looks like we're headed for more.

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

"Boehner's proposal to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion – more than a fifth -- to 2008 levels, fits into that "philosophical framework." As Bloomberg reported, such deep cuts would “lead to dramatic reductions in social services across the board” and require “slash[ing] spending for education, cancer research and aid to local police and firefighters.” It truly is radical at a time when the government is still acting as a “buyer of the last resort,” and propping up state and local budgets devastated by the recession."

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149409/republicans%27_radical_plans_for_budget_could_threaten_the_economic_security_of_millions_/?page=1

Posted by: lmsinca | January 5, 2011 9:03 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company