Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
WTF is going on (and other general WTFs)?
I can understand and agree with what you're saying about moderate republicans. But I think the democrats, esp. at the top, have sent a wildly confusing message about whether or not they're willing to compromise, too. Well, let me put it this way. For better or for worse I think many voters are associating Obama with democrats right now. And Obama, esp. in the last few months, has in some speeches ("If the Republicans want to be in the car, that's fine, but they have to ride in the back seat!") abandoned his "I will find a way to unite people" message. I don't think he can have it both ways...he can't slam Republicans one day and then the next day take the high-ground and say he wants to unite and compromise. It's hard to trust him when he swerves back and forth like that. I also know he's not the only one who does that, sure. I agree that most Americans are moderate. Now I think the responsibility lies in the hands of the newly elected to live up to their assertions and work within the system instead of the far easier "complain from outside the system" position, or else they'll be the incumbents with the albatross next time around.
It's hard to unite people when nearly half of them have nothing to say but, "no, no, no!"Even the most patient person will eventually tire of that, give up on uniting and just try to get something done with those who are willing to work.
I don't know that I agree with such a broad generalization as "half of them have nothing to say but "no, no, no!", Phil. There's a hegemonic implication there that's somewhat sinister; either you agree with me or you're not being collaborative. I do think it's fair to ask "ok, you don't agree with this plan, where can we find common ground?" If the new republicans don't answer that question with anything but "no", then I agree, they're as to blame as anyone. This is both the advantage and disadvantage, I imagine, of a more balanced power share between parties. The Republicans won't be able to point fingers as easily at a Democrat-controlled federal government because they'll have a great role, a Republican Speaker, etc. Whether or not gridlock or compromise emerges remains, on either or both sides, to be seen.
In my view Scout, the issue isn’t nearly so cut and dried as the will of the people vs. the allegiance of elected officials to their contributors. As others point out, those interests overlap considerably. One may be suspicious, as I certainly am, of why that’s so, and regret that it is so. But it is.There is no doubt that the preponderance of our law favors powerful interests through protections, incentives and every sort of fine print written into legislation. That’s partially due to the influence of money on the process, and partially due to the fact that the political class always has come from a higher economic strata (IOW, voters choose from among a group of wealthy candidates, not an economically diverse group), meaning officials naturally share many of the same concerns as the other wealthy people who contribute the money. At least in the case of labor unions, a politician may be indebted, but the financial power of the union derives from its large numbers, and its agenda, like it or not, good or bad in any of its specifics, comes from ordinary workers.
But again, given the reality that modern campaigns require money, and that large contributors carry significant influence, the voter still has the capacity to identify contributors, and to make a judgment on the agenda and worthiness of each contributor. So, assuming an elected official will be indebted to someone, the voter at the least may judge one candidate’s influences against the others’ and make a reasonably informed choice. But even this is an oversimplification, because in fact, plenty of elected officials on both sides of the aisle are motivated as much by philosophy and ideology and what they believe is best for the country and the voter as by any contributor’s influence, whether that judgment of what is best for the nation is shared by any individual or group of citizens.
Look at what happened to Russ Feingold, a tribune of the people in terms of campaign finance reform and the nefarious influence of money on politics if ever one existed. Yes, his opponent used a mighty war chest to bring him down. However, too many voters were swayed by the advertising and propaganda bought by his opponent’s and his opponent's supporters’ money. So at the very least voters are complicit.
When you ask, “When a politician votes, will he think first of the people who elected him, or will he think of the people who put him in office?” you’re asking one of the oldest, most complex and most persistent questions posed about representative governments over the centuries. And it's a question likely to remain unresolved in perpetuity I’m afraid.
I have to say, I have never seen a more obdurate congressional minority than Republicans in the current congress. It’s clear that from the beginning they made a calculated decision to reject ALL compromise, and that their agenda was focused ENTIRELY on political defeat of Obama and Democrats, with no intention of compromising or joining efforts to address the desperate economic circumstances facing the country. Their goal, clearly, was to shift the blame for those circumstances, or the perception of blame from those who created the mess: them, to the Democrats. While I condemn the cynicism of their choice and their disregard for the damage done to the country their obstruction caused, I can only applaud the boldness and the chutzpah of the strategy they devised and their ability to stick with it.
It’s some sort of common wisdom that in politics the answer is always to be found in the middle, or through compromise. I tend to think that common wisdom is wrong. The country may be essentially moderate, but more often than not when it comes to problem-solving there is a right answer and a lot of wrong ones. I liken the current political polarization on economic issues, environmental issues and others to an argument about the temperature at which water freezes. Democrats insist on proceeding on the basis that 32 is the freezing temperature. Republicans insist government policy must be based on a freezing temperature of 40. The media may portray that as an argument between two equally meritorious ideological positions, and Republicans may even convince a segment of the population that water actually freezes at 40. But when it comes to actually solving the problem, if factual reality is ignored no solution is going to occur. And compromising at 36 degrees isn’t very promising either.
I hear what you're saying, Ken, but I disagree with the "freezing" analogy. Someone on the right could reverse that and make the same argument. It's an oversimplification. To say the dems are all right on every position means you're just saying something very strongly and stridently but...that doesn't make it right, nor does it render your perspective any more valid than someone on the right with the polar opposite perspective. If you trust in a democracy you trust the people and their representatives to work out progress, and that's most likely going to include a search for a middle ground with perhaps leaning one way or the other off the mean (think Aristotle). That's what Obama said he was going to do...remember? If you don't agree with that, fine, but then don't argue you trust a democracy, other than a democracy where the only perception that can be trusted is your "right" perspective. And although there are areas, as I said, in which a middle must be found, there's a hell of a lot on which both parties in this democracy agree. Sometimes, from the left, I seem to hear a "only let us smart people vote!" message. If our country is based on a democracy, then (as scary as this may sound) you've put your trust in the general public's ability to parse out the election of leaders, etc. You can be disappointed, hell yes, in election results. But saying "I'm right, you're wrong!" isn't going to make much of a difference moving forward in a split democracy. Hell, one of the main arguments coming from the right was the perception that many in office blew off their constituents' wishes. Again, if the newly elected do the same, they deserve to be removed from office the next time around. I can understand frustration if your people didn't get elected. But that's part of living in America...anyone, including a toothless redneck from the middle of nowhere, has the same right to cancel out your vote.
The thing that kind of irks me is all of the speeches saying "The people have spoken! We have a mandate! This is a tidal wave!"But many of these races were 51%-49% affairs. The people were nearly evenly divided.
I look forward to lobbying Andy Harris in March. Usually I only get to knock on the doors of candidates who already support the needs of people with epilepsy. Now we'll get to talk to Andy Harris about health coverage and research funding and prescription switching and all those other nasty words.
RA, you seem to be saying that the democrats weren't listening to the republicans for the last two years. What I saw, though, was that the republicans weren't saying anything other than "no" in that time. And I tend to watch this somewhat closely, so I'm interested in hearing what specific instances you know of where good ideas were shut out of policy making only because they came from the minority party.
I'm on my phone, Phil,, so I can't write much. I'll think about it, but I'd also ask for instances in which Democrats meaningfully included conservative ideas. I also want to make clear I don't think the Republicans did any better job than Democrats the last few years. I'm not defending them as much as spreading the blame. Maybe Ken's right. Maybe the party in power should push its own agenda, to hell with the consequences. Maybe politicans feel strong enough to not find solutions in which multiple stakeholders win. Maybe they're okay with alienating a part of the population to live up to their ideals.
What I'm hoping is that Obama does exactly what you just said, RA. Push his agenda. Without care for winning a 2nd term. I do think that Obama did try to include conservative ideas at the beginning - that's exactly why Options was cut out of the health care reform. I also agree that from his very first day the GOP has clearly stated that they will No everything and anything the admin and Dems try to bring forward, just to gain back Congress and the WH. So there was nothing that Obama could do. They shredded health care reform, and all the talk is about repealing it. Yet the majority of people do want some form of reform, and I haven't heard a thing what the Reps intend. Except No to it all. They claimed Public Options would become a messy govt run health care ONLY but that was a lie.
Richard mentioned yesterday that all the thing I feel strongly about, health care, etc, are being termed entitlement. No. They are my rights.
I got this from elsewhere but this is a list of what he has done:
1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba , allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57. Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Attempting to reform the nation’s healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Well RA, the analogy can’t be reversed, because the analogy isn’t being made to competing or dichotomous ideologies or political opinions, but to the unavoidability of a set of facts when it comes to addressing challenges in the real world; as opposed to debate in a sort of political dream chamber using fanciful facts unrelated to the concrete. Water does have a freezing temperature of 32 degrees.There are some things that are empirically and verifiably true or they are not. For instance:
Either the country has the lowest average tax rates since WWII or it does not.
Either the country has the lowest marginal tax rates since WWII or it does not.
Either median family income has been stagnant since the 1970’s or it has not.
America now has the greatest wealth disparity since the Robber Baron era or it does not.
Either tax cuts reduce revenue and contribute to deficits or they do not.
Government and private spending either stimulates economies or they do not.
De-regulation of the financial sector either contributed to the economic collapse or it did not.
Either America has one of the smallest governments among nations as a percentage of GDP or it does not.
Either government run health insurance, Medicare, has an administrative cost of 3 or 4 percent or it does not. Private insurance either has an administrative cost of 10 to 15 percent or it does not.
The social security trust fund, without adjustment, is sound until 2042 or it is not.
The social security trust fund, with several adjustments will be sound in perpetuity or it will not.
The size of government grew during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Bush, or it did not.
The size of budget deficits grew during the administrations of the previously mentioned presidents or they did not.
Either Bill Clinton left a several hundred billion dollar surplus or he did not.
When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the upper two percentile brackets, either revenue increased and the deficit declined or they did not.
GDP, following the Clinton tax hike either grew or it did not.
Taxes for 95% of Americans were reduced during the Obama presidency or they were not.
Evolution either is a valid and long scientifically accepted explanation of life on Earth or it is not.
Either the climate is warming or it is not.
Either mankind is contributing to the warming of the climate or it is not.
Either there is a consensus among scientists that mankind is contributing to the heating of Earth’s climate or there is not.
The factuality of all of the above can be resolved with empirical verification. And I think you will agree that if one party errs substantially on the factuality of a significant number of what is on the list, then any real and meaningful approach to problem-solving by the two parties in dispute is highly unlikely.
Far from complaining about the ability of “toothless rednecks” to cancel my vote, I’m expressing scorn for those who would willfully misinform the electorate (I believe you would agree it is possible to do that, and there are those who do it), for those who effectively blur and confuse the flow of information in our democracy in order to create a genuine hardship for ordinary people when it comes to filtering the empirical truths out from the flood of dreck.
Mod
Obama is at his core a uniter. From his days editing the Harvard law review even up to now, I really believe that is one of his deepest wishes. He wants to reconcile conflicting groups. At almost every juncture in his administration so far, he has been stymied from doing so by Republicans. Health care reform took as long as it did because he was determined to have everyone at the table. Only when it finally became clear that no Republican support whatsoever was forthcoming (after all that dancing and dithering by people like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) did Dems proceed without Republicans. And even then most everything in the bill was a compromise, e.g. including the anti-abortion language of the Catholic bishops that Bart Stupak insisted be in there.
All the rhetoric about Republicans sitting in the backseat of the car is language to rile up the base. I heard it at the Chicago rally, he repeated it at the Cleveland rally, and I assume at every other Democratic rally leading up to this election. He was trying to motivate the voters more liberal than he is.
Quite a few of the proposals offered in the last congress by Obama and Democrats ORIGINATED with Republicans. As soon as these proposals had been put forward by the administration, Republicans reversed themselves and denounced them vitriolically.Cap and trade was a Republican idea. Obama’s health plan was very close to a replica of the Republican health plan of the early nineties and nearly identical to the Romney plan implemented in Massachusetts. Republicans almost to the exclusion of all else advocate tax cuts, and yet, though 40% of the stimulus bill was tax cuts Republicans were not willing to support it at all.
How one goes about compromising with people who characterize an element of the health care plan which reimburses doctors for their consultations with patients seeking end of life counseling as “death panels” is not entirely clear to me I will admit. How one negotiates eligibility requirements for health care in good faith with people who yell out to the president during the State of the Union address, “You lie,” continues to elude me.
Frankly, I have never witnessed an American president exhibit such a manifest commitment to compromise, even in the face of unprecedented hostility, disrespect, and conspicuous determination to rebuke him as Obama did. I simply can’t imagine anyone could have observed the critical periods of legislative activity since 2009 and concluded Obama was insufficient in his attempts to compromise, or that Republicans displayed a genuine desire to do so.
I guess I'm not as certain as you on this one, Ken, and that's ok. You seem to believe you have the one right answer and anyone who disagrees with you on any issue or on whether or not something is important is, well, wrong. That must be a lonely place and particularly inconvenient in a democracy. I have faith in the electorate to work these issues out over time. It may take a while, sure, but I believe this tumult will actually be good for the United States. I'm more comfortable and positive, perhaps, with dissonance as leading to progress. Meaningful change is messy, and may require these swings until lurch forward. I respect the voice of the American people to work these things out. When a candidate or issue I support fails at the polls, hell, that sucks, but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is stupid or misinformed. It means they disagree with me. I'm ok with that. The alternatives, whether they be dictatorships, oligarchies, etc., are not viable alternatives, even if said dictatorships, for example, had their perception of the right answer, as I assume they believe they do. I wish we could move faster. I imagine you do too. But change in America has to go through the people.
Oh, that reminds me, what do people think of the theory that the swing will help in 2010? I think Ken implied that above, if I was reading it right, and Gus mentioned the same on his facebook feed.
Mod
Oops, yep, that's what I meant. Thanks, LG.
Mod
I think Obama's big mistake was not being more communicative about what he was doing, and why he wanted to do it. I think he really did accomplish a lot in his first two years, I was especially impressed that a health care bill got passed at all, but part of being a leader is being visible, being accessible, and showing that you are the leader of everyone.That said, I wasn't impressed with the Republicans, either. Okay, they don't like the health care bill, what ideas do they have instead? What I heard from them was how terrible the administration's proposal was, not alternative plans.
I still think health care needs work, by the way. I'm unhappy that our country has a for-profit system. Until that changes, we're going to have problems with rising costs.
Mod
Maybe he could have taken his political capital and done something else, like immigration reform, or energy policy. But he went with healthcare. Part of it was a moral impetus: we have 50 million uninsured citizens, some of whom are dying because they can't be treated. Something had to be done. If you believe those lives matter, mandatory insurance is certainly one way of addressing it. I actually admire him for tackling it in his first two years. I wish the reform had been a lot stronger, though.
RandomAnthony wrote: "I guess I'm not as certain as you on this one, Ken, and that's ok. You seem to believe you have the one right answer and anyone who disagrees with you on any issue or on whether or not something i..."So is your disagreement with Ken's facts, or with his conclusion that progress can not be made when negotiating with those who deliberately lie and distort the facts? Or both?
I'm just confused on where you disagree with his post.
I want to say that I appreciate RA for representing an alternative viewpoint here. I know that can't be easy, with most of us leaning liberal.This country is very conservative, and there's a lot of frustration among them that they aren't being heard.
I think we're ALL frustrated that our elected leaders spend so much time tearing the other side down, and not enough time reaching agreements that both sides can be somewhat happy with.
There IS common ground, but it's being ignored, and that really bugs me.
RA, you do believe there is a single answer to the question: At what temperature does water freeze, don’t you? You do believe there’s a single set of answers to the question: What were the budget deficit figures for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 don’t you? And I imagine you also believe that if there is a debate over how much anti-freeze to add to your radiator this winter, it’s important to know that water freezes at 32 degrees, don’t you? And you do believe, don’t you, that it is conceivable that a segment of the polity might willfully offer other than the actual budget figures for whatever reason, and that voters are poorly served when they are offered less than reliable figures? Is it the person questioning the honor and well-meaningness of those offering inaccurate information disrespecting voters and condescending to them? Or is it those offering the dubious figures? Are you really persuaded that accuracy is simply irrelevant, or a matter of opinion in the political process, and unnecessary in a genuine effort to address problems? Are you really so certain we should adhere so stringently to some theoretical value of fairness and equivalence that we cannot separate and identify fact from error, nor designate who is offering facts and who is not? Factuality and truth are simply up for grabs? All things political are entirely subjective, and everyone is right and everyone is wrong?
Rather than claim I have the one right answer to every political question, I have said that too much verifiable fact too often is absent from today’s political process, and I’ve identified from which source I believe that disinformation originates. You believe that in doing so I am being unfair? Unreasonable? Only partisan?
I’m not sure why advocating for a more informed electorate, and a process less corrupted by misinformation translates to you into a failure of faith in democracy, or worse, an elitist point of view. Far from crediting voters with intelligence only when they vote my way, and with stupidity when they do not, I have said on several threads that voters make short-term calculations on the basis of ephemeral conditions, meaning there is no variation in voter ability in 2006, 2008 or 2010.
Allow me to reframe your questions, Phil. I'm skeptical of anyone with a vested interest in presenting a viewpoint showing up with a list of "facts". Two points:1. You don't think someone of the opposite perspective of Ken (say, the bizzaro Ken) could come up with a list of facts that support his position? Lists of facts of this nature can't, by the very nature, present a complete picture. That doesn't mean I think Ken is trying to deliberately lie or distort the facts. I think the picture is incomplete. I would be disappointed in anyone who made a decision based on facts of that nature without contextualization. For example, I'm pretty sure it's a fact that unemployment in parts of Wisconsin went up since Obama took office. What if someone said "FACT: Unemployment has gone up since Obama took office!" Would that be reasonable with the implication of causality, etc.? I see that kind of crap all the time in educational research. THIS is the strategy that everyone says will help every kid read. But wait. How are you assessing that? Standardized tests? No everyone agrees standardized tests are valid and reliable. And what other variables were present? How are you establishing what reading is? And (as far as Ken's lists) why are these facts particularly important? What if the electorate cares more about unemployment and makes their decision based on that rather than all those facts? Is that ok? I think the people take the varied information out there and make the best call they can. Do you not trust the electorate to do so? How did you find out about these lies and distortions but they didn't? Maybe they just disagree with you. Welcome to democracy.
2. This lonely thread never got much of a response:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...
From the Seattle Times:
The newly released information describes a government unprepared to deal with such a catastrophic spill. And it portrays an administration that withheld information from the public and from scientists about how much oil was spilled, how much remained afterward and how such estimates were calculated, a portrait that contrasts with Obama's pledge to make government more transparent and trustworthy.
Uh-oh, Phil. Looks like the Obama administration, according to the Seattle Times, deliberately lied and distorted the facts. How on earth could anyone negotiate with them?
So forgive me if I'm cynical about lists of that nature from either side. And it's not that they're all bastards. But I think subterfuge and half-truths are hardly a republican exclusivity. And, again, I trust the electorate to work through these issues over time.
My list simply represented examples of questions with verifiable answers in order to distinguish indisputable concrete facts from debatable opinions and philosophies, my list representing the former. There is no “right” answer to the question, “Is smaller or larger government always preferable?” There is a right answer to the question, “Was there a budget surplus at the end of President Clinton’s term?” My emphasis was on the need for a mutual agreement in fundamental facts before “compromise” has any genuine meaning or actual point. The specific items on the list, beyond being useful as examples were not intended to identify the actual items in it as more or less important than any others.There’s a distinction between a misstating of fact, willfully or otherwise, for instance: “Unemployment DID NOT go up in Wisconsin during Obama’s two years in office,” and stating that “though unemployment did go up in Wisconsin during Obama’s term, here is the appropriate context for that increase.” And in my humble opinion, it is fair and even necessary to point out that the former is false, and it is of value to citizens to designate the source of the misinformation. Doing so is far from an unforgivable attack on democracy, nor is it merely a cravenly partisan act.
I think I agree with everyone you said there, Ken. High-five!:)
I would happily hug you both, buy you a beer, and talk about football or books or something next.
Is it possible to get the beer without the hug?
Lobstergirl wrote: "RandomAnthony wrote: "I can understand and agree with what you're saying about moderate republicans. But I think the democrats, esp. at the top, have sent a wildly confusing message about whether ..."Obama is the first one to bring up race. He has had the house and senate for two years, so there is no reason for him not passing anything he wanted. He and the dems wrote the health care bill with no input from republicans. now they want bipartisanship? I don't think so!
ms.petra wrote: "He and the dems wrote the health care bill with no input from republicans."Input was requested and never received. That's different.
A lot of things passed the house, but couldn't defeat a filibuster in the senate. If they have any balls whatsoever, the senate should get on those immediately and get something done.
ms.petra wrote: "Obama is the first one to bring up race."Source?
Mod
I don't know why you brought up race, but Obama is usually the last person to bring it up.
Obama is the first one to bring up race. He has had the house and senate for two years, so there is no reason for him not passing anything he wanted. He and the dems wrote the health care bill with no input from republicans. now they want bipartisanship? I don't think so!This is so lacking in facts and so full of misinformation. LG is correct about the Senate -- as anyone who had been really paying attention would have known. Parroting Sean Hannity and the Fox lie stew just doesn't add up to reality -- even if it's repeated a million times (as it has been, thanks to the millions of "dark" dollars provided by corporations and the ultra wealthy Koch Bros. types) as if it were all true. A Civics 101 course would tell one that Congress doesn't work that way.
And where did the race comment come from?
comment 145 just got me fired up. I was venting. I am a right leaning Libertarian and I am tired of being called a "Teabagger" and a "racist" in general because I do not want amnesty and I do not agree with the President's policies. Obama, on a Univision appearance, urged Latinos to get out and vote against their enemies. He is the one that said people would be afraid of him because he doesn't look like all the other president's. I am not afraid of him because of his ethnicity. In fact he could be green, purple, I don't care. I am afraid of the socialist direction he is taking our country.This is just how I feel in general. no comments in this thread were specifically directed at me, it is just the general tone. I understand how a filibuster works and I am not parroting anyone, just as I am sure you are not. I just type before I think sometimes. I should probably just stay out of this thread as I don't have the time to research and back up everything I say.
not a dirty word, that is just not how our country was founded.
There was a Tea Party representative from Freedom Works on the radio this morning. The host asked him whether the Tea Party would support or abandon Republicans who worked to cross the aisle and make compromises. He said that it depended on what they were compromising. If it had to do with eliminating spending and balancing the budget, they would be flexible.
If it had to do with health care, no compromise "because half a bad idea isn't any better than a bad idea."
He basically threatened that they would work to remove anyone who supported the health care reform.
I find it interesting that Scott Brown is on their hit list in Massachusetts even though he was one of their candidates. And Orren Hatch is considered weak as well. I think it'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the next couple of years, and whether it results in more Christine O'Donnells and Sharon Angles, or actual electable candidates.
The Kochs are libertarians, too. They've effectively used their extraordinary influence to get millions of ordinary people to actually believe that they (Kochs) give a rat's butt about individual freedoms, when what they (Kochs) really want is to be free to rape and pillage the environment however they see fit, without any interference from government.Call it socialism or whatever you wish, I'm not trusting them (Kochs) with the air I breathe or the water I drink.
I think what I hear from Petra here (and I don't want anyone to assume I'm speaking for her because she'll beat me up, she's pretty tough:) is the idea that sometimes it seems, to me, anyway, that anyone who criticizes the president or the left at any time is labeled a right-wing psycho who hates everybody and doesn't have a brain. Listen. There are smart, reasonable people in the country who disagree with the President sometimes, and who maybe didn't even vote for him. To characterize everyone who doesn't support the current Democratic party line as unreasonable and even kind of crazy is lazy and irresponsible. To characterize everyone who self-identifies as a "tea partier" as the same only drives them further away from the table. They can call liberals names, too, and they do. I want to make clear that I don't hear anyone here doing that, by the way. And I agree with Pi, this is going to be interesting.
Criticism of the president comes from both sides of the aisle. I have no issue with criticisms that are based in fact and reasonable in presentation. Those that are merely lies, hyperbole and antagonistic in nature do nothing to forward the discussion, and the messengers in that case are rightly dismissed. Unfortunately, many who hear those idiots then believe what they've heard is true and will defend it with their "second amendment solutions."
I don't have any problem with what you're saying there, Phil.
While a sampling of politically-themed Goodreads threads would indicate there is a center-left bent here, and while it’s unfortunate, though unavoidable I guess that Ms. Petra or others would feel underrepresented, I strongly reject the idea that the right in general or Tea Partiers specifically have any legitimate claim of victimization. You can’t recklessly label the president a socialist, foolishly claim that virtually any government program, spending, taxation or regulation is socialism, challenge the president’s citizenship, compare him to Hitler and Stalin, hysterically and in some cases out of political cravenness misidentify a benign Medicare imbursement as “Death Panels,” grossly misstate taxation and deficit figures, call for the repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, then turn around and say, “I simply cannot believe anyone has the temerity to label me extreme.” This isn’t a matter of hot rhetoric emanating from agitated members of a fringe, and aside from the Hitler and Stalin comparisons (Tea Party favorites) these are common assertions from Tea Party leaders, “mainstream conservatives” and Republican elected officials and candidates. It’s necessary to note just how far American conservatism has lurched severely right. No mainstream conservative party among modern first-world democracies retains views so extreme as those championed by our conservative “mainstream.” Maybe our American right retains a rare and unique wisdom that both conservatives and liberals elsewhere in the world simply cannot attain. But just perhaps, they don’t. What’s unfortunate is that America needs two strong, competing political parties and political philosophies, and one of them, in my humble opinion has gone completely off the rails.
But it’s noteworthy that the reaction to President Obama on the right is not a great deal different than the reaction to President Clinton. In both cases much of the right implicitly and in some cases explicitly have disputed their very legitimacy as presidents. And again, often implicitly but in some quarters explicitly (Limbaugh, Fox, where millions get their “information”) any Democratic president is now considered all but illegitimate. Liberalism, which has girded our liberal democracy since the country’s inception, from the Reagan era forward has become, after a concerted effort, a standard form of invective in the political lexicon. So, I’m not terribly moved when a Tea Partier feels misunderstood or misconstrued.
When it comes to what our country was “founded on,” I can certainly tell you what it wasn’t founded on: voodoo economics, The Austrian School (libertarian economics basically) or Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s conceit). The founders, as well as the intellectual forefathers of capitalism were appalled by concentrations of wealth, insistent on fair negotiations for labor, and valued labor well above capital. Read Thomas Paine and you’ll observe the blueprint for the modern welfare state (all modern democracies being a mixture of isms).
To go back to WTFing for a moment, here's a self proclaimed "Buchananite conservative" and "thinking man":
It amazes me that the people who are protesting that they "want their country back," or say they have lost their rights, are usually the same people that make outrageous statements like that of "the thinking man" posted by Sarah Pi. I'd say the jerk's rights are intact. Where else could he say that, and not get arrested, or worse ?
The other one that cracks me up is that the same people who want to slash expenditures and entitlement programs are out there with signs like this:
He looks a bit young for Medicare. Could he be funnin' ?
Terminalcoffee
Books mentioned in this topic
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (other topics)Room (other topics)
Mockingjay (other topics)
Catching Fire (other topics)
El cuaderno de Maya (other topics)
More...
For example, this fall a lot of moderate Republicans fell to Tea Party candidates. This signals to the party that moderates are less electable. In the future, more conservative candidates will be trotted out if that's what wins.
It's moderates who make compromises across the aisle, so we're going to see more grandstanding and less compromise. Voters have sent a message that those who compromise will be replaced.