View Full Version : James Carville's Advice to the President...Panic!
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/14/opinion/carville-white-house-advice/index.html
A short (single page) blip from James Carville, Democratic strategist and talking head. Not a lot here that hasn't been heard from other sources, but interesting to hear it from Mr. Carville. Ignore the Republican bashing that this left-handed Limbaugh is paid to do and there are some pretty valid points in what he has to say.
I've always admired James Carville, both for his candor and the fact that Mary Matlin married him.
In the article, he mentioned (and I paraphrase) that the President must change course, fire his top advisors and start over. I agree with this to a point, although he's already lost most of his economic team, replacing everyone won't make any difference if they are hindered by a top-down ideology. That's the surest way to guarantee more of the same.
catherine
9-15-11, 12:30pm
That is great! I love James Carville, as "idiosyncratic" as he is. I also love the fact that he married a Republican, because that's what I did (although I'm not Democrat--I'm a Democrat-leaning Independent).
It's good when a "family" member points out the elephant in the room. I, too, shudder at the thought of another Texas cowboy president (nothing against Texas, but Perry seems even more opposed to my values than Bush). Time is running out, though, so maybe Obama should heed Carville's advice.
Independents like me need to get louder in our support for Obama. Independents generally don't speak up much because they don't have a polarized ideology, their views are more nuanced and harder to put into a sound bite, kind of like Obama!
loosechickens
9-15-11, 3:15pm
I believe President Obama has gone WAY too far in attempting to compromise and find ways to work with people who have no other aim in life other than to destroy him and his Presidency, to gain power themselves. While he is looking for fairness, long term good governance, and trying to chart a course with that in mind, he is dealing with people who will and do obstruct his every effort, and by his compromising with them is disheartening people in his own party.
I kind of agree with James Carville, and especially with this part:
"As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country."
-----------------------------
just as an aside, we have friends who have a home very near the Virginia vacation home of James Carville and Mary Matalin and know them well. According to our friends, they are very different from their public "partisan gunslinger" personas, and often agree much more than they disagree, which is comforting. Our friends say that both of them just know how to make the most money out of their partnership, but are really great people in real life......I can't imagine being married to someone whose political views were so opposite to mine, but I guess if we both made a huge amount of money because of it, it would be easier to deal with, hahahaha.
....I kind of agree with James Carville, and especially with this part:
"As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country." .....
That's why he makes the big bucks. Framing things using imagery which appeals to a fringe audience. Of course he's not the only one, and he does it in an entertaining way, but let's not forget that it's all theatrics and hyperbole.
So his advice to the President is:
1. Conduct purges of scapegoats within the Administration.
2. Conduct show trials of scapegoats outside the Administration.
3. Limit communication to authorized party hacks (Not that "over-educated, over-explanatory" CBO Director).
4. Never, ever deviate from the party line.
People pay this guy for advice? Seems like it would be cheaper to check out a copy of “Darkness at Noon”, or “The Gulag Archipelago” from the library.
With over a year to go till the election, I still think that at best the election will be very close. That being the case I give the advantage to Obama simply because it could come down to the lesser of two evils.
I do think that if President Obama makes a few dramatic moves he will win handily. I will concede the Bible Belt to the opposition but this is a large country and for the most part the collective wisdom will not go for the GOP radicalism.
Peace
I believe President Obama has gone WAY too far in attempting to compromise and find ways to work with people who have no other aim in life other than to destroy him and his Presidency, to gain power themselves. While he is looking for fairness, long term good governance, and trying to chart a course with that in mind, he is dealing with people who will and do obstruct his every effort, and by his compromising with them is disheartening people in his own party.
I kind of agree with James Carville, and especially with this part:
"As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country."
-----------------------------
just as an aside, we have friends who have a home very near the Virginia vacation home of James Carville and Mary Matalin and know them well. According to our friends, they are very different from their public "partisan gunslinger" personas, and often agree much more than they disagree, which is comforting. Our friends say that both of them just know how to make the most money out of their partnership, but are really great people in real life......I can't imagine being married to someone whose political views were so opposite to mine, but I guess if we both made a huge amount of money because of it, it would be easier to deal with, hahahaha.
I'm confused LC. Its comforting to think of opposing celebrity analysts who happen to be married finding middle ground, but not the President of our country? Carville and Matalin are just a less glam, lower profile version of Brad & Angie so the level of cooperation within their relationship is inconsequential to most of us. I would go so far as to say some of us wish them well, but don't really care.
The President on the other hand has a relationship with each of us that matters a great deal because it will effect us, our kids, grandkids, etc. He damn sure better compromise and better start doing a lot more of it. I hate to use phrases like "in typical liberal fashion...", but you're driving me to it by picking the rhetoric out of Carville's article and ignoring the substance. There are apparently a LOT of people in this country that feel the President needs to get off his butt, climb down off that very high horse he's been riding and get something done. Mr. Carville offered some interesting thoughts in his article, even if they were completely framed in hyperbole. It might do the President (and therefore the rest of us) some good to think it over.
loosechickens
9-16-11, 2:27pm
I'm sorry, Gregg.....I really have to disagree. I think that if there is one thing this President HAS done, it's been to try to bring all voices to the table, with the expectation that everybody would have to give some to arrive at some solutions. But the Republicans have pretty much been totally unwilling to compromise, and have shown themselves willing to crash the whole economy to protect even the richest from paying any more taxes, while expecting the poor to suffer more, and the economy to sink even further while they protected those corporations' every tax break. People such as Mitch McConnell have said publicly that their primary mission is to make sure that President Obama is a one term President, so they have ruthlessly opposed even things that not too many months ago, they supported, and in some cases even originated, just to make sure of that goal.
Nope.....only in the past week or so has the President more or less been on ANY kind of a "high horse", as he's tried to show the ?American people just what is going on. There can't be much compromise happening when only the President and the Democrats are doing any compromising. Even the debt ceiling bill, the Dems caved on, giving the Republicans pretty close to 100% of what they wanted, because in the end, somebody had to blink to keep the economy from going over the cliff.
Today's Republicans are not the Republicans of even a few decades ago. This group really would prefer to destroy the Federal government, although I think many of them would be really surprised at the chaos were they to achieve their aims.
I wasn't making any comparison between the Carville-Matalins and the President, only making a comment that friends who know them well say that much of their differences are part of a "persona" that each of them adopts, as hired "gunslingers", and that they are kind of laughing all the way to the bank. Is Carville a Democrate and Matalin a Republican? Of course, but those personas are mostly for public consumption, and both of them in real life are much more moderate and closer together than the parts they play in the public sector. I just thought that was interesting. But nothing was meant in any sort of comparison to the main subject under discussion, which was that this President has some real problems, and needs to address them if he expects to win re-election.
If you think that this President has been "on his high horse" and somehow hasn't BEEN trying hard to "get something done", then we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
It's going to be an interesting year ahead....sometimes I have to fight my urge to just insulate and isolate and come up out of my hole on voting day, cast my vote, and then see what happens. Because the process of getting to that point is going to be traumatic, I'm afraid. Every time I think this country cannot be more divided without actually ending up in civil war, the polarity ratchets up a notch. Scary.
Well LC, we've made it this far by agreeing to disagree. :) There actually is one very important point that I will readily concede. The Republicans in Washington, the so called conservatives, have for the most part become assholes. I have never had a party affiliation, but am completely disenfranchised by the Republicans now because of their obstructionist ways. That is simply my view, there are others in the conservative ranks that applaud the hard line stand that has been taken, but it ain't workin' for me.
I actually do give Mr. Obama credit where credit's due for attempts to compromise. I do not think he and his administration have us on a good path. Economically speaking I am diametrically opposed to most of his policy and I don't think he has the what it takes to propose what its really going to take to fix this country. I am fully aware that the Republicans will likely work to shoot down any proposals he makes, but we at least need to start getting some REAL ideas on the table. What we really need is someone with the guts to tell our country that we are in serious trouble and that its going to hurt for a while to get out of it. There are very few on either side of the aisle with that kind of fortitude.
BTW, Mr. Obama did propose a jobs bill. I haven't read the whole thing, but even I'm opposed to what I have seen so far. More of the same trying to spend our way out of trouble in ways that are destined to produce little, if any, long term benefit. IMO, that's not the kind of action we need any more.
loosechickens
9-16-11, 10:41pm
No problem, Gregg......disagreeing with the President's policies is both reasonable and to be expected from those who do not share his particular vision as to which direction we should be traveling. I only reacted to the idea that somehow, he was on a "high horse" and making no efforts toward compromise, where most Democrats would say that he's done nothing BUT compromise, often far, far more than even reasonable people in his party think reasonable.
I agree that this country is in a huge mess....heck, the entire world economy is in a mess, with a hugely unsustainable model that depends on constant growth in a world with dimishing resources and ever increasing pollution. And with the incredible drumbeat of devisiveness that has been fanned by those with money and power to be gained by fanning those flames of difference rather than looking for ways to find common ground, I really do not have a lot of faith in how we're going to do, no matter what.
What do you think would be the best path for the President? Given what actual power he has, and that does not involve Congress, which is locked in gridlock at the moment, with the Republicans absolutely determined not to give an inch, so that they can bring down his Presidency, so useless to him as a cooperator in actually solving problems.....the old, "burn the village down to save it" mentality, to me. If you were advising him, what would be your advice?
The Democrats say he is selling out to big business and the polluters.....the Republicans try to paint him as a socialist who is trying to take over the country and turn it into a Marxist state......my feeling is that if both sides are against his policies, he's probably right in the "sweet zone".... ;-)
loosechickens
9-16-11, 11:38pm
This is kind of what I mean, Gregg, about feeling as though the President has bent over backwards trying to find common ground, and trying to accomodate Republican viewpoints as well as Democratic ones. Yet, to hear conservatives tell it, Obama is all about raising taxes, and anti-business.....go figure. From www.americablog.com
"All told, the Recovery Act included $243 billion worth of tax cuts through 2012.
Nearly two years after signing his first big tax cut bill into law, President Obama completely outdid himself by signing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, commonly known as the December 2010 tax deal. The biggest element of the December deal was the extension, for two additional years, of all the Bush tax cuts and alternative minimum tax relief, at a two-year combined cost of more than $400 billion.
In addition, the deal extended a variety of business tax cuts and incentives, which reduced revenues by some $150 billion, and it cut the estate tax—a tax paid by only a very few super-wealthy, massive estates—by $65 billion. The December tax bill also cut the payroll tax paid by employees by 2 percentage points, delivering more than $110 billion in tax cuts to working Americans.
Put it all together, and in one fell swoop, President Obama cut taxes by $654 billion in 2011 and 2012 alone. In other words, with this bill President Obama cut taxes by more, in raw dollar amounts, in just half of his term than George W. Bush did over his full first term.
With the huge Recovery Act tax cuts and the enormous December 2010 tax cuts combined, President Obama has already signed into law tax cuts amounting to more than $900 billion from 2009 through 2012. Even after accounting for legislation that the president signed that increased revenue during that period, President Obama has cut taxes by more than $850 billion in his first term, or approximately 1.5 percent of GDP.
Just recently, President Obama proposed another $250 billion in tax cuts designed to spur job creation, mostly in the form of additional cuts to the payroll tax. In fact, as the Citizens for Tax Justice noted, President Obama’s proposed payroll tax cuts are essentially equal in size to the total cost of the extended Bush tax cuts for 2012. If Congress passes this next set of Obama tax cuts, his total will rise to well more than $1.1 trillion, or nearly 2 percent of GDP—close to double the size of the tax cuts in President Bush’s first term."
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 10:08am
James Carville is a political has-been and now just another talking head. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 10:44am
PS: The only two presidents to lose reelection in my l lifetime were uncharismatic, weak, and poor campaigners who ran against more charismatic opponents. Obama is none of the above.
He will win in a cake walk.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-11, 11:54am
Just recently, President Obama proposed another $250 billion in tax cuts designed to spur job creation
Yes most of the job bill was tax cuts. I made a post to "personal finance" about this.
"High horse?" Is this the new Republican-approved word for "uppity," as some suggest their "arrogant" characterization is? Good God, if he were any more humble, he'd be groveling on his belly. For those of us who wish he'd channel FDR, his "bully pulpit" seems more like a game of "Mother, may I."
Remember "I'm the decider?" Real humble, that one.
"High horse?" Is this the new Republican-approved word for "uppity," as some suggest their "arrogant" characterization is? Good God, if he were any more humble, he'd be groveling on his belly.
I haven't heard "uppity" since watching Gone With the Wind, but whatever floats your boat. IMO our President appeared extremely arrogant during his first year in office, like the newest (honorary) member of the jet set spreading his wings. That has since been tempered quite a bit. Approval ratings hovering around 40% will do that. Even so, if you listen to his speeches you hear about 20 "I"s for every "we". That used to sound arrogant, now it might just be that no one is standing with the President anymore.
What do you think would be the best path for the President? Given what actual power he has, and that does not involve Congress, which is locked in gridlock at the moment, with the Republicans absolutely determined not to give an inch, so that they can bring down his Presidency, so useless to him as a cooperator in actually solving problems.....the old, "burn the village down to save it" mentality, to me. If you were advising him, what would be your advice?
That's the real question now, isn't it? I still have the opinion that it is less about how much we are spending and more about what we are spending it on. If you want to talk about cuts there are a few that make sense to me. I'm not an isolationist by any means, but there's a hundred billion or so in the foreign aid budget that seems to carry little benefit. Cut the military back to defending OUR shores rather than everyone else's and we could probably lop off another quarter trillion. Quit subsidizing industries. Period. If we're going to be capitalists there is no such thing as too big to fail.
I've said it a hundred times, but regarding what we spend money on its still guns and butter. Our transportation infrastructure is crumbling. We are overly dependent on foreign oil. The electrical grid is extremely vulnerable. Our public education system is second rate at best. Money spent to develop any or all of those will pay dividends for generations to come. We need to make investments in the future, not bailouts for today. Investing in roads, bridges and rail systems will help keep us competitive. Investing in nuclear, solar, wind, clean coal and natural gas along with developing better delivery systems for the power will help keep us secure. Educating our youth will keep us viable. I do not know how many millions of job would be created with such a program, but would guess several. And none of them would be minimum wage jobs.
Saying that is easier than the President actually selling the idea. The benefits would have to be obvious enough and immediate enough to make any opposition appear insane to oppose it. Work with leading Republicans. Have a closed door and say "this is what I want to do and I will share the credit all the way". To be effective the President will have to do an end around on the Tea Party. Beat them to the punch. Start everyone talking about how much money will be coming in to the coffers if we create 10 million great jobs instead of 2 million crappy ones. It's a politicians wet dream so how hard can it be to get the ball rolling?
loosechickens
9-19-11, 3:15pm
I don't think we're very far apart on the issues, Gregg....I agree with most of what you are saying. The difference lies, I think, in the fact that I think that is pretty much EXACTLY the direction that President Obama has been trying to move us, yet you seem way less than pleased with him and are not a supporter.
He has been slower than I would like to get us unentangled in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also understand that wars are much easier entered then they are to extricate oneself.
From what you said above, I'm surprised that you are not an Obama supporter, because that is surely not the prevailing Republican outlook, and is far closer to the vision of the future espoused by this President. You may be closer to being a moderate Democrat/moderate Republican, which is the centrist position where I see this President, than you realize.
thanks for the thoughtful post.....lots of good meat there.
I think there are more than just a few of us in the US that are disenfranchised from the parties. I lean conservative for fiscal reasons, but tend to be quite liberal on social issues. I've seen too many programs initiated by the Democrats that don't have an ending. It's not so much that the idea they propose isn't valid, or even needed, its that Democratic programs have tended to stretch to perpetuity by design. They also tend to be band-aids rather than cures. The focus tends to be on helping the individual who was injured/oppressed/whatever rather than stopping the forces that caused the injury. I'm all for helping anyone who needs a hand, but we need to zoom out for a while and look at our bigger pictures to find real solutions. Like I said above, IMO we are just spending money on the wrong things.
Now please don't make the leap from that and assume I'm saying the Republicans are doing any better. They're not, but their proposals have tended to be finite in duration a little more often and smaller in scope overall. It is truly a case of the lesser of the evils for me.
iris lily
9-20-11, 12:38am
I think there are more than just a few of us in the US that are disenfranchised from the parties. I lean conservative for fiscal reasons, but tend to be quite liberal on social issues. I've seen too many programs initiated by the Democrats that don't have an ending. It's not so much that the idea they propose isn't valid, or even needed, its that Democratic programs have tended to stretch to perpetuity by design. They also tend to be band-aids rather than cures. The focus tends to be on helping the individual who was injured/oppressed/whatever rather than stopping the forces that caused the injury. I'm all for helping anyone who needs a hand, but we need to zoom out for a while and look at our bigger pictures to find real solutions. Like I said above, IMO we are just spending money on the wrong things.
Now please don't make the leap from that and assume I'm saying the Republicans are doing any better. They're not, but their proposals have tended to be finite in duration a little more often and smaller in scope overall. It is truly a case of the lesser of the evils for me.
No Child Left Behind doesn't seem to have an end to it. Proposed by GW (for which I could boot him in the behind), supposedly hated by liberals, why is this thing still around? Why hasn't the President dumped it?
flowerseverywhere
9-20-11, 5:21am
Our transportation infrastructure is crumbling. Investing in roads, bridges and rail systems will help keep us competitive. Investing in nuclear, solar, wind, clean coal and natural gas along with developing better delivery systems for the power will help keep us secure.
I wanted to comment on a small portion of your comments. I recently went on two road trips and I saw construction everywhere of roads and bridges. I was actually quite surprised at how much construction was going on in especially in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and NY.
also, there is a lot of power development going on in NY. The whole marcellus shale/hydrofracking controversy along with the development of windmill farms is moving along. Also, there is a new streamlined process for Nuclear power plants and several actually have the possibility of being started in the next few years after a very long moratorium on new plant building.
"President Obama today said that safe, new nuclear power plants are a “necessity” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-safe-nuclear-plants-necessity-9852906) as he announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plant in three decades (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-yes-new-nukes.html). "
that is from a speech in Feb 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/obama-says-safe-nuclear-power-plants-are-a-necessary-investment/
and this one from March 2011 "Nuclear energy has been handed a big role in meeting a pledge from President Barack Obama that the country will generate 80pc of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2035."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8387030/Barack-Obama-to-press-ahead-with-plans-to-build-new-nuclear-power-stations.html
I honestly think one of the problems we are having is the political spin being put on everything by the media and the information that circulates via e-mail and even verbally about perceptions of what is going on, not what is really going on. The headlines today were more about whether or not Obama's tax plan constituted class warfare or not rather than exactly what the new taxes meant to individuals and corporations. But factual news is becoming a thing of the past in this age of sensational headlines.
I wanted to add that a big project I saw in DC was the new Dulles metro rail project. They are extending the metro out to Dulles airport, a huge project with new stations being built along the way. The total when complete will be about 23 miles of new rail. It will enable many people to leave their cars home, a great goal.
flowerseverywhere
9-20-11, 8:47am
No Child Left Behind doesn't seem to have an end to it. Proposed by GW (for which I could boot him in the behind), supposedly hated by liberals, why is this thing still around? Why hasn't the President dumped it?
9/19/2010
"President Barack Obama is expected on Friday to announce the details of what the White House calla "relief from key provisions of No Child Left Behind."
Some lawmakers have said it would be a mistake for the administration to bypass Congress. This is a particularly sore spot for Republicans, who already bristle at what they see as the executive branch's broader attempts to sidestep their authority on a number of issues by issuing federal regulations.
"It's not just the specifics that worry the Republicans, it's the idea that he doesn't have the authority to change the law," said Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based education organization."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415412/republicans-ready-major-changes.html
9/19/2010
"President Barack Obama is expected on Friday to announce the details of what the White House calla "relief from key provisions of No Child Left Behind."
Some lawmakers have said it would be a mistake for the administration to bypass Congress. This is a particularly sore spot for Republicans, who already bristle at what they see as the executive branch's broader attempts to sidestep their authority on a number of issues by issuing federal regulations.
"It's not just the specifics that worry the Republicans, it's the idea that he doesn't have the authority to change the law," said Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based education organization."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415412/republicans-ready-major-changes.html
That may be good new about No Child Left Behind if the "relief" is reasonable. I won't say any more, I'd just like Congress to repeal that.
Me too. I understand it was intended to be a sinecure for one of the Bush boys--the one who sells standardized tests for a living. Kind of a "no Bush left behind" thing. :~)
I wanted to comment on a small portion of your comments. I recently went on two road trips and I saw construction everywhere of roads and bridges. I was actually quite surprised at how much construction was going on in especially in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and NY.
also, there is a lot of power development going on in NY. The whole marcellus shale/hydrofracking controversy along with the development of windmill farms is moving along. Also, there is a new streamlined process for Nuclear power plants and several actually have the possibility of being started in the next few years after a very long moratorium on new plant building.
"President Obama today said that safe, new nuclear power plants are a “necessity” (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-safe-nuclear-plants-necessity-9852906) as he announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plant in three decades (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-yes-new-nukes.html). "
that is from a speech in Feb 2010
I'm very happy to know that there is activity, at least in some areas. What I had in mind is something exponentially larger in scope. Somewhat along the lines of the CCC back in the 30's. Literally putting millions of people to work with new projects. It would have to be federally administered, or at least under the federal umbrella, simply because of the scope. Individual states don't have the resources to take it on.
A few million in highway repairs or a few billion in new nuke plants won't get us there. I've seen estimates on the various parts of the program floating around for years. To build a smart grid credible estimates range from $1 or $2 trillion up to $8 trillion. Building a network of new nuke plants along with retrofitting existing plants with control systems to match the new could easily be $1 trillion. I really haven't seen overall estimates to bring our rail system up to speed, but you've got to guess that between laying new track, building new terminals and bridges and fixing up all the old stuff it wouldn't be that hard to spend a trillion bucks. There are estimates that say half of the highway bridges in the county need work and a quarter of them are not even safe any more. As you observed back east, there is some work going on around me, but no where near that estimated level so the total of that work nationally would probably rival the smart grid for cost.
And all that doesn't even touch on developing domestic natural gas, clean coal, significant solar and wind, etc. What about urban renewal? Increased band width, fiber optic lines and all the other information grid components? There is no shortage of areas that need attention and probably no limit to what it would cost to fix or build everything. I'm not slamming Mr. Obama for doing nothing, I'm more fed up with the lack of vision in Washington overall. Even worse, anyone with vision and the guts to talk about all of this would be squashed by the system there. To complete the full circle, maybe Congress is the very first thing we need to fix so we can get started on the rest.
I'm very happy to know that there is activity, at least in some areas. What I had in mind is something exponentially larger in scope. Somewhat along the lines of the CCC back in the 30's. Literally putting millions of people to work with new projects. It would have to be federally administered, or at least under the federal umbrella, simply because of the scope. Individual states don't have the resources to take it on.
A few million in highway repairs or a few billion in new nuke plants won't get us there. I've seen estimates on the various parts of the program floating around for years. To build a smart grid credible estimates range from $1 or $2 trillion up to $8 trillion. Building a network of new nuke plants along with retrofitting existing plants with control systems to match the new could easily be $1 trillion. I really haven't seen overall estimates to bring our rail system up to speed, but you've got to guess that between laying new track, building new terminals and bridges and fixing up all the old stuff it wouldn't be that hard to spend a trillion bucks. There are estimates that say half of the highway bridges in the county need work and a quarter of them are not even safe any more. As you observed back east, there is some work going on around me, but no where near that estimated level so the total of that work nationally would probably rival the smart grid for cost.
And all that doesn't even touch on developing domestic natural gas, clean coal, significant solar and wind, etc. What about urban renewal? Increased band width, fiber optic lines and all the other information grid components? There is no shortage of areas that need attention and probably no limit to what it would cost to fix or build everything. I'm not slamming Mr. Obama for doing nothing, I'm more fed up with the lack of vision in Washington overall. Even worse, anyone with vision and the guts to talk about all of this would be squashed by the system there. To complete the full circle, maybe Congress is the very first thing we need to fix so we can get started on the rest.
All these things are what President Obama and the democrats have been talking about. All of them. But honestly, if he/democrats were to put this up in congress for debate/vote, how would the republicans react? How do you think they would react, Gregg? How do you think the mainstream republicans, a shrinking minority, would react? How would the tea party republicans react?
I'm pretty sure they would condemn it and vote it down, knocking each other over to get in front of a camera to spin just why they voted against job creation. Of course, we know they would rather sell their grandmother down the river than do anything at all that would help the economy and the people, cause, remember, job one is to get President Obama out of office. Right now, they would vote against apple pie and motherhood if they thought it would get rid of him.
The Tea Part wants to take us back to 18th or 17th century. No cars or trucks back than. No electricity so no need for power plants we also did not have 340 million citizens than.
The Tea Part wants to take us back to 18th or 17th century. No cars or trucks back than. No electricity so no need for power plants we also did not have 340 million citizens than.
I thought I saw something like that on the Green Party platform.
flowerseverywhere
9-23-11, 4:09pm
I'm very happy to know that there is activity, at least in some areas. What I had in mind is something exponentially larger in scope. Somewhat along the lines of the CCC back in the 30's. Literally putting millions of people to work with new projects. It would have to be federally administered, or at least under the federal umbrella, simply because of the scope. Individual states don't have the resources to take it on.
wouldn't it be wonderful? I love the old CCC bridges and walls in the national parks and could see many projects that could enhance our countries beauty, safety and infrastructure.
I can't imagine that there is a chance one dollar would be appropriated to this project by our present congress.
and IrisLilly, did you see the No child left behind news?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-no-child-obama-20110923,0,7709150.story
it involves states being allowed to apply for waivers to the program.
"Obama said he has no other choice after his team has been working with Congress for several months to try to remedy the problems without success.
“Congress has not been able to fix these flaws so far,” Obama said, “so I will.” "
iris lily
9-23-11, 10:04pm
wouldn't it be wonderful? I love the old CCC bridges and walls in the national parks and could see many projects that could enhance our countries beauty, safety and infrastructure.
I can't imagine that there is a chance one dollar would be appropriated to this project by our present congress.
and IrisLilly, did you see the No child left behind news?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-no-child-obama-20110923,0,7709150.story
it involves states being allowed to apply for waivers to the program.
"Obama said he has no other choice after his team has been working with Congress for several months to try to remedy the problems without success.
“Congress has not been able to fix these flaws so far,” Obama said, “so I will.” "
I am annoyed that the Republicans don't get back to basics of Republican ideals and kill the hell out of the Education Department and any such initiatives.
I thought I saw something like that on the Green Party platform.
Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.
Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.
I think the tea party, which seems to be not so much a party in the conventional sense but a loose collection of groups reacting in dismay to this latest spurt in the power of government, is at this point at least as important to the Left as the Right.
the Left requires villains for its narrative, and the tea party fits that bill. With no central platform you can pick and choose which person speaking in their name provides the most outrage. Look at how the image their enemies have test-marketed have changed over the years, from "astroturf" corporate shills, to the violently racist-fascist fantasies following the Giffords shooting to today's know-nothing obstructionists image the President is selling with his new Harry Truman schtick. If the tea part didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent it. That's why NPR/CNN will keep up their villain with a thousand faces coverage.
Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.
The tea party is a loose coalition of regional groups dedicated to a few very specific principles and represent a very large percentage of American citizens. I hope we never get to the point where certain liberals or liberal groups get to decide who has a voice and who doesn't.
Already, the coverage most of the "lamestream media" provides the movement is negative. I'd certainly rather that all coverage be negative with the opportunity for rebuttal than to forbid discussion at all.
On a side note, I'm reminded of my irritation that liberals have taken and usurped the term "liberal" to such a degree that classical liberals such as myself and the vast majority of the tea party can no longer use the term. A classical liberal would never, ever suggest that the media be silenced on any subject. From now on, I'll simply refer to you guys as progressives. I hope you'll understand.
flowerseverywhere
9-26-11, 1:43pm
I am not sure why people have to assign such labels to everyone and especially with such negativity.
The tea party is a loose coalition of regional groups dedicated to a few very specific principles and represent a very large percentage of American citizens. I hope we never get to the point where certain liberals or liberal groups get to decide who has a voice and who doesn't.
Already, the coverage most of the "lamestream media" provides the movement is negative. I'd certainly rather that all coverage be negative with the opportunity for rebuttal than to forbid discussion at all.
On a side note, I'm reminded of my irritation that liberals have taken and usurped the term "liberal" to such a degree that classical liberals such as myself and the vast majority of the tea party can no longer use the term. A classical liberal would never, ever suggest that the media be silenced on any subject. From now on, I'll simply refer to you guys as progressives. I hope you'll understand.
Nice attempt to spin my comment into the implication that I, a typical non-classical liberal, wish to take away somebody's freedom. Very clever the way you just slipped that in there.
Here's the deal. Non-Classical Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call us: We're in favor of the First Amendment, okay, got that? We like it very much. ME criticizing a news organization for covering the tea party ad nauseum or in my view, without historical and political context or without the balance of other points of view has nothing to do with eliminating anyone's "voice" or shutting down any media outlet. I have the right to criticize the TP, journalists and news organizations: That is MY first amendment right.
Here in a nutshell is my criticism of media coverage of the TP:
1. The media portrayed the TP as solely a grassroots, populist movement and ignored the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful movement conservative players. There is a huge element of astroturfing in the TP movement.
2. The media portrayed the TP as a separate and distinct political movement from the GOP and movement conservatism, failing to analyze the TP in historical and political context. In fact a recent study indicates that 80% of TP members are registered Republican and were so registered at the birth of the TP. Studies have also shown that they do hold, compared to other groups, views that would be deemed extreme by the majority of folks in the US. They also show, as a group, more racial animus towards non-white people than other groups in general.
So, if what you are saying is correct, and the media showed them in a bad light, it's only because there are some extreme folks in the mix. The racism and hatred and just plain craziness in some quarters on the right were not invented by the media. They exist.
IMHO, the TP is simply a re-branding effort by the GOP, and to a great extent, it worked. So, good for the GOP, they did something smart.
3. The media did not always balance TP claims with factual analysis by experts. Instead, we were subjected to, for example, the ridiculous "death panel" issue, where an outright false claim was reported by the media and then they would put on, sometimes, some partisan on the other side sputtering about the demogoguery of the TP. You did not have clear, dispassionate, substantive analysis and reportage about the health care bill. So, this helped the TP and gave them more power to shape the debate because people were confused.
Anyway, of course I will concede the point that it is important to cover the tea party to the extent that it represents the Republican base, and obviously the Republican base is a sizable minority, just as the Democratic base is.
You can call me progressive, non-classical liberal, liberal, a die-hard Democrat, and Obamabot, a librul, a socialist. I don't care. Here's where you don't go:
Marxist, Leninist, communist, fascist, Nazi, #)#@), DemocRAT, thug, baby-killer, Feminazi, #(#(@ liberal, un-American, unPatriotic, not a "real" American, terrorist lover, terrorist sympathizer, histrionic woman, parasite (per Ayn Rand, sheesh, let's not get started on her)...
BTW, historical context of the term "conservatism" suggests that modern movement conservatives are really no longer conservatives, but radicals because they want to get rid of a lot of stuff that's been around for a long time, e.g. social security. But, I'll give you a pass on that one.
loosechickens
9-26-11, 2:59pm
A friend sent this link to me today.....it's long, it's complicated, but if we're wandering into the weeds of "who the liberals are" and "who the Republicans of today are", etc., it is useful. Have at it.
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
the author of this piece is described by James Fallows in Atlantic as:
"....... is by a recently retired Congressional staffer named Mike Lofgren. Lofgren's name is barely known to the general public, but among people who have covered or worked in the national-security field, he is a familiar and highly esteemed figure. He spent 28 years as a Congressional staffer, mainly on budget matters, mainly in the defense-and-security realm, and mainly for Republican legislators."
An interesting look from inside looking out, by someone right in the middle of the huge changes that have come in the past thirty years in the Republican Party. Certainly the things he discusses are why I am no longer a Republican, and he illustrates very well how the very far right fringes have become somehow the "mainstream" of the Republican Party.
loosechickens
9-26-11, 3:27pm
Wow.....good heavens! Could it be that even Fox News is beginning to be a bit aghast at where the hard right is taking the country? I wouldn't have believed this.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/roger-ailes-fox-news-course-correction_n_980850.html
"Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has given one of his typically candid interviews to Newsweek. The interview was published Monday.
For a man who first made his name as a media guru for Richard Nixon, Ailes is often surprisingly forthcoming about Fox News and his opinions. In previous interviews, he has called NPR executives "Nazis" (he later apologized), said he didn't mind if people thought Glenn Beck was fired from the channel, and admitted that he wants both Bill and Hillary Clinton to join Fox News.
Behind the scenes, Ailes is reported to have clashed with Sarah Palin and told Beck to cool his more controversial rhetoric.
Monday's interview offered up more of Ailes' unvarnished opinions about his network and his employees. He made a big admission to Newsweek, saying that he has made a "course correction" at Fox News, veering it away from the hard-right line it took in the earlier days of the Obama administration. (Ailes offered a preview of this strategy in January, when he told Russell Simmons that he had ordered his anchors and pundits to "tone it down" in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.) Beck's departure, as well as a more nuanced approach to his most famous pundit, Sarah Palin, have been part of that strategy, Ailes said.
He also spoke openly about many of his anchors, saying that Bill O'Reilly "hates" Sean Hannity because he's jealous of his radio success (and thus confirming years of rumors about the animosity between the two).
Ailes also called Hannity "predictable" and said that he sometimes has to have a word with Shepard Smith when Smith says things that may not go over well with the Fox News crowd. (He didn't say whether he was referring to Smith's seemingly pro-union comments about the Wisconsin protests, or his saying that the killing of Osama bin Laden was illegal and that American foreign policy is on a dangerous path.)
Read the full interview, including news about Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry's relationship with Ailes, here. "
__________
I see, after posting this, that the link on the last word "here" doesn't work, so to see the whole article, you'll have to go to the link posted and click on the "here" from there....sorry.......
Nice attempt to spin my comment into the implication that I, a typical non-classical liberal, wish to take away somebody's freedom. Very clever the way you just slipped that in there.
Well, you did say you wished the media would stop all coverage of the Tea Party.
Here's the deal. Non-Classical Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call us: We're in favor of the First Amendment, okay, got that? We like it very much. ME criticizing a news organization for covering the tea party ad nauseum or in my view, without historical and political context or without the balance of other points of view has nothing to do with eliminating anyone's "voice" or shutting down any media outlet. I have the right to criticize the TP, journalists and news organizations: That is MY first amendment right.
And that's an entirely different thought than the one I commented on.
1. The media portrayed the TP as solely a grassroots, populist movement and ignored the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful movement conservative players. There is a huge element of astroturfing in the TP movement.
Yes, the populist movement did gain the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful people. That doesn't take away from it's populist message.
2. The media portrayed the TP as a separate and distinct political movement from the GOP and movement conservatism, failing to analyze the TP in historical and political context. In fact a recent study indicates that 80% of TP members are registered Republican and were so registered at the birth of the TP. Studies have also shown that they do hold, compared to other groups, views that would be deemed extreme by the majority of folks in the US. They also show, as a group, more racial animus towards non-white people than other groups in general.
So, if what you are saying is correct, and the media showed them in a bad light, it's only because there are some extreme folks in the mix. The racism and hatred and just plain craziness in some quarters on the right were not invented by the media. They exist.
The Tea Party is a separate and distince political movement. It just happens to have a broader appeal to dis-enchanted Republicans than to Democrats. I can't speak for what the majority of folks in the US consider extreme, since there are no examples given. I will challange the "racial animus" part as it's been my experience that race and identity politics have nothing to do with the movement, regardless of how the media and the political left try to frame things.
Where the left and the media have succeeded is in their focus on the fringe elements of the group and linking those attributes to the whole. Then, the non-political only see what the media wants them to see and comes away with a bad impression.
3. The media did not always balance TP claims with factual analysis by experts. Instead, we were subjected to, for example, the ridiculous "death panel" issue, where an outright false claim was reported by the media and then they would put on, sometimes, some partisan on the other side sputtering about the demogoguery of the TP. You did not have clear, dispassionate, substantive analysis and reportage about the health care bill. So, this helped the TP and gave them more power to shape the debate because people were confused.
That's because there was truth behind the claims. Any factual analysis by experts would expose the underlying truth that in many cases, care, or lack of care will be decided by government bureaucrats, which could be construed as "death panels", or perhaps "life panels", or even "care panels".
As for the health care bill analysis, I don't think you can blame the Tea Party for people's confusion. Our Speaker of the House told us that we had to pass it before we could find out what was in it, and now, all this time later, we still don't know what effect various parts of the bill will have.
You can call me progressive, non-classical liberal, liberal, a die-hard Democrat, and Obamabot, a librul, a socialist. I don't care. Here's where you don't go:
Marxist, Leninist, communist, fascist, Nazi, #)#@), DemocRAT, thug, baby-killer, Feminazi, #(#(@ liberal, un-American, unPatriotic, not a "real" American, terrorist lover, terrorist sympathizer, histrionic woman, parasite (per Ayn Rand, sheesh, let's not get started on her)...
Luckily for you, the conservatives on this site do not engage in that sort of name calling. Watch out for some of the progressives though, there are a few who like to speak in terms of "small minded right wingers", "low information voters", etc.
BTW, historical context of the term "conservatism" suggests that modern movement conservatives are really no longer conservatives, but radicals because they want to get rid of a lot of stuff that's been around for a long time, e.g. social security. But, I'll give you a pass on that one.
I suppose you could look at it that way, but you could just as easily believe that modern movement conservatives recognize the non-conservative aspects of things that have been around for a long time, as well as the realization that those non-conservative "stuff" have the real possibility of placing this country's economy into the same situation Greece is in now. Of course, Greece has the rest of the EU to bail them out. If conservatives don't persevere, when it happens to us, I wonder who'll step forward to save us from ourselves?
I can see how the throne-and-altar conservatives and free-market liberals of yesteryear would be confused by the way those terms get used today.
I would see modern American ”liberals” as better described as “Social Democrats” as understood in Western Europe, or perhaps as “Federalists”, in the way they would like to see the power of a central government expanded and used for what they view as benign purposes.
I would see modern “conservatives” more as “Anti-Federalists”, or perhaps “Constitutionalists”, suspicious of concentrated power, and looking to keep as much sovereignty as possible at the local or individual level, and limiting the central government to a strictly enumerated role.
I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.
I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.
The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."
Idahl,
I changed your quote to reflect MY reality:
The Right requires villains for its narrative, and President Obama, homosexuals, undocumented immigrants, transgender people, Democrats, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and of course Muslims fit that bill. With no central platform you can pick and choose which person speaking in their name provides the most outrage. Look at how the image their enemies have test-marketed have changed over the years, from "communists" to "the homosexual agenda", to liberals who spoke out against Sarah Palin for her incendiary rhetoric following the Giffords shooting to President Obama doing his Harry Truman Schtick. If President Obama and gay people and George Soros and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Code Pink and Rachel Maddow and Barbara Streisand and so on and so forth didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent them. That's why Fox News, right wing talk radio, The Free Republic, Daily Caller, World Net Daily, and CNN will keep up their villain with a thousand faces coverage.[/QUOTE]
AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!
I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.
The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."
Perhaps not, but I think there’s a pretty common interest out there to protect oneself against an administration that feels justified in mandating health insurance premiums and viewing any income you can keep for your own use as a “tax expenditure”.
I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.
It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.
AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!
Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.
loosechickens
9-27-11, 12:09am
And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........
and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?
And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........
and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?
My point was the silliness of equating the torrent of paranoid bloviation aimed at Tea Party types with whoever it is out there who's familiar enough with Rachel Maddow to be annoyed by her.
And Mrs. Palin has managed to build a nice little fortune as a left-wing bogeyperson. I wouldn't be so quick to compare her unfavorably to a basic cable talking head.
Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.
Well, that was exactly the point. You were going on about how the left wing narrative requires a villain du jour, and I was merely pointing out that the right wing is NOTORIOUS for drumming up cash and support by creating villains, which change over the years. You do know who Frank Luntz is, right? He is a marketing expert for the right. He knows that "universal health care" doesn't make people as jumpy as "government takeover." He knows that "job creators" sounds much better than "the wealthiest people in the country." C'mon. I've been at this for a long time, I know spin, both left and right and when you strip it down you come down to policy and ethics. So, stop with the knee jerk spin already.
So, Code Pink is very yesterday. So is Hillary Clinton. Who are today's left wing villains according to the right? Soros is still popular. Obama of course ranges from the antichrist to a Nazi to unAmerican to bad for business, or all of the above according to some folks. To liberals, he is a centrist who has tried and tried to accommodate the Republican party. That's our pov.
Of course Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition than Rachel Maddow. What's your point?
You don't think the "opposition" hands us plenty of material? Are you kidding again? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Rush Limbaugh? 10 doozies a day each.
It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.
That's true. Rich folks come in all stripes. But there are distinctions. There are some rich folks who donate soley based on personal interests. Maximizing profit is their ONLY concern and they have a very narrow understanding of how that interest is advanced, and they don't seem to give a crap about anybody else, including the people who for example will be impacted by the pollution generated by their businesses, so they tend to vote for candidates who claim they will minimize taxes on rich folks and regulatory burdens on business. In fact, the party carrying the water for these folks now calls them "job creators" which allows them to exploit the unemployment crisis for the benefit of rich folks.
There are other rich folks who have concerns beyond maximizing profits or who believe that the best way to advance profits is to advance the opportunities of other people. They might profess, say, to care about the plight of poor folks or working class folks without health insurance.
The majority of rich folks seem to be in the first category. Therefore, it is safe for me to say that in general, with some exceptions, the interests of rich folks do not align with my interests. Therefore, someone's wealth is a factor to me in determining credibility. There are of course affluent people who do seem to care about other things beyond their own finances & power. But sometimes those folks just want to impose a religious agenda on society, so I'm not too fond of that either.
Soros is rich but tends to support policies that have wider application than his bank account, including policies that might help ME. Can't say that about the Koch Brothers.
Well, that was exactly the point. You were going on about how the left wing narrative requires a villain du jour, and I was merely pointing out that the right wing is NOTORIOUS for drumming up cash and support by creating villains, which change over the years. You do know who Frank Luntz is, right? He is a marketing expert for the right. He knows that "universal health care" doesn't make people as jumpy as "government takeover." He knows that "job creators" sounds much better than "the wealthiest people in the country." C'mon. I've been at this for a long time, I know spin, both left and right and when you strip it down you come down to policy and ethics. So, stop with the knee jerk spin already.
So, Code Pink is very yesterday. So is Hillary Clinton. Who are today's left wing villains according to the right? Soros is still popular. Obama of course ranges from the antichrist to a Nazi to unAmerican to bad for business, or all of the above according to some folks. To liberals, he is a centrist who has tried and tried to accommodate the Republican party. That's our pov.
Of course Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition than Rachel Maddow. What's your point?
You don't think the "opposition" hands us plenty of material? Are you kidding again? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Rush Limbaugh? 10 doozies a day each.
I think there is a significant difference. The Left needs to constantly update their list of things we need to cede more power to government to protect us from: corporations, banks, the carbon atom, competition, people (rich or otherwise) who don’t want to surrender their “fair share”, bad decisions, bad luck, people who like guns, fatty foods, et. al. After all, they can’t very well come out and say, “We need to establish an elite with enough coercive power to protect you from yourselves”.
Conservatives have a much simpler problem in this regard. Their perceived enemy is overweening government. Granted, this sometimes gets taken to foolish extremes, but by and large you can’t go far wrong keeping government on a short leash.
Sarah Palin can dangle 10,000 participles, Rick Perry can raise his eyes sanctimoniously to Heaven every quarter hour, but how can that compare to the delectable cluelessness of AttackWatch.com? Or a presidential candidate standing in a faux Greek temple assuring us that this was the time the seas would recede and the planet would begin to heal? Or the acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize on spec? Or the tingle running up Chris Matthews' leg? Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"? Or a president using the State of the Union Address to scold the Supreme Court for enforcing the First Amendment? "Kinetic Military Action"? - can't wait to see that campaign ribbon.
Mangano's Gold
9-27-11, 5:59pm
I think there is a significant difference. ....
Conservatives have a much simpler problem in this regard. Their perceived enemy is overweening government. Granted, this sometimes gets taken to foolish extremes, but by and large you can’t go far wrong keeping government on a short leash.
I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.
Mangano's Gold
9-27-11, 6:05pm
Perhaps not, but I think there’s a pretty common interest out there to protect oneself against an administration that feels justified in mandating health insurance premiums and viewing any income you can keep for your own use as a “tax expenditure”.
Tax expenditures were called Tax Expenditures long before Obama took office. That isn't something Obama made up.
If Congress ran Cash for Clunkers through the tax code it would still be Cash for Clunkers. And if they made it permanent and called it the "Let Americans Keep More of Their Own Money Act" it would rightly be excoriated.
I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.
Perhaps some don't draw a distinction between a person and a condition. Where you see Gays, Arabs and Mexicans, others may simply see a small minority attempting to influence the majority, a sub-sect of a religion that has declared war on us, and a large group of people who have bypassed our legal immigration requirements.
Framing the discussion around entire demographics may make for good drama, but it's dishonest and slimey.
Mangano's Gold
9-27-11, 6:15pm
Perhaps some don't draw a distinction between a person and a condition. Where you see Gays, Arabs and Mexicans, others may simply see a small minority attempting to influence the majority, a sub-sect of a religion that has declared war on us, and a large group of people who have bypassed our legal immigration requirements.
Framing the discussion around entire demographics may make for good drama, but it's dishonest and slimey.
Hey, they are Republican boogeymen not mine. And you know it.
Hey, they are Republican boogeymen not mine. And you know it.
No, I don't know that. And neither do you.
Mangano's Gold
9-27-11, 6:43pm
Electoral politics can be a dirty game. Partisans on each side think the other is worse. Some are even in total denial.
One man's boogeyman is another's legitimate concern.
>>Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?<<
Ah yes, the Patriot Act: the abomination that pretty much shredded the Bill of Rights...(I think the Third Amendment is intact).
I'm sure that from your seat you do perceive a "significant differnce". From other seats, however, one can see of some of the Right's favorite boogeymen of the last decade: Gays, Arabs, and Mexicans. None of these boogeymen spring from government overreach. In fact, one could argue that they come from a much more reptilian place.
Your post reminded me of something I read shortly before the 2010 election:
“It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
>>Or "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"?<<
Ah yes, the Patriot Act: the abomination that pretty much shredded the Bill of Rights...(I think the Third Amendment is intact).
Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.
Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.
Obama has been way too far to the right for my taste on many issues he's addressed, attempted to address - or ignored.
iris lily
9-28-11, 10:20am
Your post reminded me of something I read shortly before the 2010 election:
“It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
This goes to Bernie Goldberg's analysis of his news buddies during the Bush election years. They simply could not imagine rational people who would vote for GW Bush. They wouldn't do it. None of the people with whom they associate with would do it. They didn't know anyone who would vote for GW. Therefore, it won't happen.
And they were shocked, not once, but twice, at the election outcome.
That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird.
Thank goodness President Obama came along to put a stop to all that nonsense.
That he hasn't even tried is shameful, IMO.
loosechickens
9-28-11, 3:10pm
"That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird." (Iris Lily)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, Iris Lily. Which is why, if I were a conservative, I would be both embarassed and ashamed of the percentage of really out there on the fringe folks who are being seriously considered as Presidential timber on the Republican side. It's as though the Republican party has been taken over by idiots. Even Goldwater or Reagan would be considered RINOs by these people.
President Reagan, he who headed a large union, raised taxes on the rich, etc., could not possibly win this election's primary campaign.....he would be considered far too moderate. Despite the fact that they all appear to venerate the man, and Rick Perry has even been receiving consultant lessons on Reagan mannerisms, ways of ****ing his head, standing, etc., to evoke the "Reagan image". Lots of luck!
Honestly, I feel badly for friends who are serious, knowledgeable conservatives. I know you are, I consider Alan and others to be thinking people. You HAVE to, underneath, be seriously embarassed at folks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, et al being who is representing conservatism. It would make past and should make present conservatives squirm with embarassment. You're not people who hold many of the fringe views of people like Michelle Bachmann.
I really think that if the folks fanning the flames of partianship could be quieted, and folks on both sides could sit down and discuss quietly all the problems our country faces, and how we could work together to solve them, with each side being willing to some compromises, rather than "my way or the highway", we'd find that we are not so far apart.
Both Republican and Democratic families want opportunity for their kids, something of a fair opportunity to succeed, decent schools, access to health care, a reasonably clean and less toxic environment, and moderation in government. Unfortunately, the loudest voices live on the fringes, and both parties are pulled by the loudest and most rigid ideologists, and the large bunch of us on either side of the middle get little representation, and even less decent government because of it.
JMHO
Of course, there is a reasonable conservative view of the world. I don't happen to share it, but it's not the bunch that deny the science of global warming, or the ones who have kept the birther stuff about President Obama alive despite all proofs, think that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet a fair percentage of the people being seriously considered for President on the Republican side either believe or support that stuff.
This goes to Bernie Goldberg's analysis of his news buddies during the Bush election years. They simply could not imagine rational people who would vote for GW Bush. They wouldn't do it. None of the people with whom they associate with would do it. They didn't know anyone who would vote for GW. Therefore, it won't happen.
And they were shocked, not once, but twice, at the election outcome.
That's what I think is the worst thing about the progressive/conservative divide, that too many people refuse to recognize that the other side has a reasonable point of view. It doesn't happen to be their point of view so it gets trashed. I think there are reasonable points of view on both sides. Only a few opinions are what I call "fringe" or excessively weird.
agreed. +1
loosechickens
9-28-11, 3:40pm
Just to add.....today on www.thehill.com, conservative son of President Reagan, Michael Reagan said.....
"“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,” Reagan said. “He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes...................”
These conservative candidates today have marched so far right, they've practically fallen off the edge of their flat world. Yet serious conservatives will not denounce them, defend them, and in the process hurt the Republican Party.
Hey, if I just look at it from a Democratic point of view, it's fine....let them howl at the moon if they want, but when I look at it from the standpoint of the fact that should President Obama lose the election, one of these folks will be sitting there in the Oval Office being expected to deal with the complexities that face a President, it's VERY scary. And should be scary to you guys, too, much as you might disagree with this President or the views of Democrats.
How would you serious conservatives, with good minds, really FEEL about one of these folks like Perry, Bachmann or Palin ending up in that Oval Office? Honestly.
Just to add.....today on www.thehill.com, conservative son of President Reagan, Michael Reagan said.....
"“If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left,” Reagan said. “He would have trouble getting his own nomination, but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes...................”
These conservative candidates today have marched so far right, they've practically fallen off the edge of their flat world. Yet serious conservatives will not denounce them, defend them, and in the process hurt the Republican Party.
Hey, if I just look at it from a Democratic point of view, it's fine....let them howl at the moon if they want, but when I look at it from the standpoint of the fact that should President Obama lose the election, one of these folks will be sitting there in the Oval Office being expected to deal with the complexities that face a President, it's VERY scary. And should be scary to you guys, too, much as you might disagree with this President or the views of Democrats.
How would you serious conservatives, with good minds, really FEEL about one of these folks like Perry, Bachmann or Palin ending up in that Oval Office? Honestly.
In all honesty, I'd prefer to see Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan duking it out right now.
Would a recovering Democrat like Reagan be considered today? Or any other ideologically impure candidate? I think that's still within the realm of possibility when you consider Romney hasn't dropped out yet.
Right now, I'm cracking myself up contemplating Chris Christie practicing international diplomacy...http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Jeb Bush? Ben Stein? (I might even contribute to Stein's campaign, though he surely doesn't need my money. I rarely agree with him, but I respect him nonetheless.)
Jeb Bush? Ben Stein? (I might even contribute to Stein's campaign, though he surely doesn't need my money. I rarely agree with him, but I respect him nonetheless.)
Love his column in the American Spectator.
You HAVE to, underneath, be seriously embarassed at folks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, et al being who is representing conservatism. It would make past and should make present conservatives squirm with embarassment. You're not people who hold many of the fringe views of people like Michelle Bachmann.
Having candidates with all sorts of different views is simply part of our process. Right now there is a very large voting block that shares the views expounded by those candidates. It's nothing more than democracy at work in that regard. Candidates telling voters what they want to here is as old as voting itself. Personally I'm hoping the more moderate cream will rise to the top, but right now the squeaky wheels are getting greased (sorry for the bad double cliche').
More curious to me at this stage is that there are very few rumors of a challenger on the Democratic side. It seems the DNC and the voters are going to limit themselves to the increasingly unpopular incumbent. I'm just surprised that some of the more upwardly mobile moderate Dems haven't started making a little more noise.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.