Tag: GOP

It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of [bin Laden] who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool.

[…]

We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. The fact of the matter is, this is somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received.

[…]

…we [are] monitoring worldwide reaction. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden is dead. Certainly there is no doubt among al Qaeda members that he is dead. So we don’t think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference. There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this earth again.

President Barack Obama, in remarks to Steve Kroft for an upcoming 60 Minutes.
I agree, and I find that bit about al Qaeda members lack of doubt to be particularly interesting, but I still think this course of action only invites a whole new wave of “Deathers.” Not that they’d believe anything up to and including bin Laden’s head on a pike in the middle of a DC roundabout (he was dead ages ago and kept on ice; this is an elaborate biological replicate of what appears to be his head; where’s the body!?!). Still, something has got to be put out there such that this crap is mostly shut down. The nonsense with the birth certificate fairly proves that it will never, ever go away until the MSM and specifically FOXnews is just too embarrassed to mention it anymore.
Why not video of the raid up to the frame before he is shot? Surely this would be proof positive and seems likely to exist. Assuming that’s not forthcoming, I’d say it’s only days before House and Senate Republicans start in with the “well, I take him at his word but…” crap.

Yelling at Congresspeople

squashed:

The summer before last, Republican groups made huge political gains by showing up at Townhall meetings and acting atrociously. Now Democrats want to do the same thing.

They shouldn’t.

When I saw that MoveOn.org was organizing the same sort of events to target Republicans, I initially felt a certain glee. This will go well for the left. Then I remembered the August 2009 town halls meeting I attended. I am wholly in favor of constituents challenging their representatives—even if it makes the representatives uncomfortable. I have little use for any sense of propriety that gets in the way of a robust and honest political dialog—but what happened at that townhall meeting wasn’t political discourse.

It was base. It was incoherently mean, screamingly ugly. The same hateful energy responsible for every crime ever committed by a mob was on display. It was the sort of event that makes you wonder whether humanity was a mistake.

Now MoveOn.org will unleash the same sort of nastiness at the Republicans. It will capture a media narrative. It will be good for the Democrats in 2012. But it will be bad for the country. They shouldn’t do it.

Presumably it all depends on how it’s done. The reason the Tea Klan stuff was so ugly (to me, anyway) was the pure low-information spectacle of it all; the purest example of this being stuff like “keep your guvmint claws off my Medicare” and the like. If MoveOn shows up and just screams people attending and the House member running the thing down: then Squashed and I are in complete agreement, it will have been a bad idea and bad for long-term political discussion in the country.

But, if MoveOn shows up and states the case, calmly and upon a foundation of facts-based disagreement (e.g. the GOP plans to end Medicare in every meaningful way; however, a program called Medicare will still be there and here is a partial list of the reasons that move will be very, very bad deal for the elderly and infirmed…): then it is all for the good.

I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

[…] 

What we ought to be doing is inventing a whole series of breakthrough mechanisms that create incentives for people to have a better environmental outcome in an economically positive way, to accelerate the transition to better and cleaner technologies.

Disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich, speaking in 2007.
Source: Washington Post

Compassionate Conservatism

Breathtaking. Words do not suffice:

Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores.

[…]

His explanation?

“I never had anything new,” Caswell says. “I got all the hand-me-downs. And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army, and his comment was — and quite frankly it’s true — once you’re out of the store and you walk down the street, nobody knows where you bought your clothes.”

Well, as long as the reasoning is as airtight as that, I guess I have no argument to make.

Compassionate Conservatism

When Republicans reached basic consensus about what they wanted to do [relative to Ryan’s plan], they then delegated the details to a small group of people who fleshed out the plan, it was then presented to the caucus and within a week they had the vote. Democrats, by contrast, put their health reform plans through an agonizing months-long process of public intra-party disputes. That gave people who didn’t care about the details tons and tons of time to organize a backlash while tending to signal to low-information voters that Democrats were doing something controversial even among their own partisans. The backlash against Medicare privatization is overwhelmingly likely to grow over time, but it’s also the case that between today and November 2012 other events will intervene and crowd the agenda space possibly letting members off the hook for an unpopular vote.

Matt Yglesias on the key differences between how the GOP and Democratic Caucuses operate.

Beating “Beating a Dead Hobby Horse”

jeffmiller:

I think this response is at times weird and at times unfair.

1. You may hate Ryan’s plan. You may agree with Krugman. (Whose criticisms, ironically, can be just as appropriately applied to the Affordable Care Act.) You might think its unserious, or that its ideological. I would agree that its ideological, and that it’s based on some fantasy numbers. But it is a plan and not a speech. Obama has offered a speech. We’d like to see a plan. That’s a fair request of a President who has increased spending to unprecedented levels.

Outline for Obama’s plan. Isn’t legislation but he’s also not the House.

2. The Negro Dialect crack is completely unfair. It has nothing to do with my criticism.

3. Yes, winning office is an achievement. Becoming Senator is an achievement. Neither of these made the world more peaceful. It is wonderful that Obama was able to become the first African-American president. He deserves a lot of credit for this. So does the American electorate, but I wouldn’t give them a Peace prize either.

You specifically stated that the President won his Nobel because of his oratorical gifts. I simply say that this is not significantly different than pointing out that he has “no negro dialect”. Hyperbole to be sure, but not utterly unfair as they are similarly unrelated to the issue at hand: the Nobel Prize. He did not win the Peace Prize because he is a fine orator. Didn’t hurt his chances, but not why he won. Deserved or not, he won it because he had an historically significant election over the more typical “angry old white man who promises endless war if elected” and because he was replacing Bush. I don’t think this is even a particularly debated point outside of more loopy websites. This factors into (8), but we’ll get there.

4. Why are you acting as though I suggested or believe that ACORN rigged the election, or that Obama didn’t win legitimately? Again, that’s completely unfair.

Again, you stated he had no experience whatever. This despite the fact that he previously won an election for a national office. Disregarding that implies that that win was not won fairly or otherwise simply doesn’t count for some reason. I simply inserted a potential motivation for that belief.

5. Obama has not reduced the size of government, […] Federal government employment has grown since Obama took office.

We’ve covered this extensively before. But, by all means, let’s go to the chartsngraphs:


You are simply incorrect by any measure you care to look at. The federal government hired people to conduct the Constitutionally mandated census. Period. The GOP has used this particular hobby horse again and again to create the illusion of massive federal government expansion and “takeover” of everything under the sun that simply does not exist. Period. Repeating this bit of dogma, though, again leads to point (8).

6. George W. Bush, Clinton, and most of their predecessors had a considerably firmer record of actual achievement prior to election than Obama. I find it difficult to imagine how one could make a case to the contrary. But if you can provide a list of Obama’s legislative achievements, I’ll gladly reconsider.

George W. Bush owned the Rangers (primarily and by his own admission he was there as the “showcase” minority owner) and was governor of Texas, also a largely ceremonial position. He had very little achievement politically. Every business he was involved with prior to his political career had failed. He couldn’t even show up regularly for the National Guard. It is an insult to imply that he was more qualified than Obama. Period. I see this level of purposeful ignorance and silliness as on par with birtherism; the previous statements above simply add to that. Thus point (8). Again: hyperbole. But hyperbole in service of a larger point made across a relatively long post.

Just me on my little tumblr. Nothing personal.

The Marker

Obama: In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
Kevin Drum:Question: is Obama laying down a marker in hopes of getting a bill that extends only the middle-class cuts? Or is he laying down a marker knowing that Republicans will refuse to budge and therefore the entire Bush tax cut package will expire?
Lemkin: He is putting the onus of middle class tax cut extension or expiration squarely on the GOP House, which is where it should have been all along. We would have had a very different outcome last time around if this had been the shape of the negotiation. There is very real power in pursuing a “do nothing” approach if Obama and the Democrats at large will just deign to use it. Shrill, I know, but following such a path would really punish the GOP and force them to come out squarely against their own stated goals again and again and all in defense of the very richest people on the Earth.

Ideal Framework

Ygleisas dares to dream about the “ideal negotiating framework” for the debt ceiling:

White House demands clean debt ceiling increase, House majority demands big spending cuts, Senate majority demands partial repeal of Bush tax cuts, and we all compromise on just doing the damn debt increase.

That would be nice. But it would also require non-feckless Democrats in the Senate. Which, so far as I can tell, do not exist.

But, since the plutocrats and banksters seem to realize they’ve got skin in this game, maybe we can just cut some insanely rich people’s taxes, raise the debt ceiling, start a fourth war (I’m thinking Spain is due), and call it a day.

Hell No It Doesn’t

Elliot Spitzer (4/6/11): Congressman, thank you so much for joining us tonight….Look, I want to begin with the question that goes to a simple notion of fairness. And here’s how I want to frame it for you. The top one percent of income earners in our nation get 25 percent of the income and control 40 percent of the wealth. Those numbers have gone through the roof over the last decade or two. And yet Paul Ryan’s budget plan imposes two-thirds of its burdens on the poor. Two-thirds! Right after we gave a big tax cut to the rich. Does that violate your sense of fairness in a very basic sense?
Todd Akin, R MO: Well, no.