What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's a good institution for America and for democracy?posted by Rhaomi at 1:24 PM on September 28, 2010 [15 favorites]
[Laughs]
I saw your quote of the President wagging his finger at those who might not vote and have to point out that the President is committing (once again) a huge tactical error. Temper, temper Mr. Cool is all I can say. Methinks Obama doth protest too much and seeks a scapegoat for his own failure of vision and leadership.There's not voting the party line, and then there's not voting at all. Yes, that quote was Obama saying you can't stay home and still complain, and that is the problem. You can't stand on the sidelines and say "neither party is saying what I want to be said" so you stay home, and then complain louder that the worse of the two got elected. To me, voting for the less bad candidate is opting for the lesser of three evils. Not voting, Worst Candidate, or Not Worst Candidate (assuming only two parties).
What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.And it's not even like nothing has been accomplished:
I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill. You've got to make a set of decisions in terms of "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?"
Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there's a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It's like, "Well, gosh, we've got this historic health care legislation that we've been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let's focus on what we didn't get instead of what we got." That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.See also the "Obameter" published by the Pulitzer-winning factchecker PolitiFact.com, which rates the administration's progress on 506 recorded campaign pledges at:
When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, "Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable." I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don't even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.
The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn't seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.
You look at all this, and you say, "Folks, that's what you elected me to do." I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I've got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we've accomplished.
There's not voting the party line, and then there's not voting at all. Yes, that quote was Obama saying you can't stay home and still complain, and that is the problem.What are you talking about? In November you can vote for the republicans, the democrats, or neither (by not voting). The third option is a reasonable option if you're unhappy with the democrats if you don't actually want to vote for a republican.
If you're holding out for the best of all options, there's a chance you'll end up with the worst available.What we have now is pretty bad, frankly. I don't know, maybe the democrats have done focus groups and it turns out that this is a good tactic, but it doesn't seem very responsible to complain about the people who's support you need.
I'm daily astounded that the President has to say this. Can anyone really say there is no difference between the Tea Party candidates and the Democrats who are facing the loss of their majority in both houses?No one is saying that. The problem is that while the democrats may be better, the difference isn't great enough to matter. What have they done with those majorities? Pass a law requiring everyone to buy health insurance? By 2014? In other areas things have actually gotten worse. The economy is a lot worse and frankly Obama's economic team doesn't seem to know what they're doing. Civil Liberties are a mess.
Feingolds, it wouldn't do anything to affect the overall numbers in Congress, nor would it affect things at the margins. Most progressive bills that fail do so either because of Republican stonewalling or because a few of the most conservative Democrats break ranks. A 'Democratic Tea Party' wouldn't change either of those factors.Actually progressives were nearly able to unseat Blanche Lincoln in AK, who's one of the more conservative democrats. She's one of the senate Dems who opposed extending the bush tax cuts for the middle class without an extension for the rich
Remember 2000? 600 Nader voters cost 1,033,000 Iraqis their lives.Idiotic. How do you expect people to take you serious when you spout that kind of nonsense?
Then why are the likely voter screens showing many fewer dems voting? Who is it if it isn't "disaffected" progressives? Because I'm seeing no one else leading the "hate Obama" parade.Right, because obviously the sheep can't look around and form opinions about the world with their own two eyes. They have to be lead by someone. Sure, bob may have lost his job while reading about how WallStreet bankers are getting huge bonuses after being bailed out with his tax money.
That's true, but it would still require at least tacit Republican support or else Republicans could turn it into a massive PR disaster for the Democrats.Well it's much more important that the democrats avoid bad PR then that the government be run effectively!
There were no promises broken.Gitmo is still open. And on civil liberties things are actually worse.
You want no compromise and would rather see failure without compromiseI don't see why you should be "compromising" when you've got 60 senate votes. Or why the filibuster should even be left in place.
You don't agree with our general political outlook at all.So why on earth should I vote for your guys? If we don't agree on political outlook, then clearly not voting for democrats is the correct course of action.
I find the argument more to be "We got you some stuff, but fucked up on other stuff. Now, back us up on this and give us the support and cover we need to do more, or else we'll be replaced with people who intentionally fuck up as a matter of policy."If that's the case, then you have to actually look at the "some stuff" they accomplished. I find it pretty lacking.
Warrant and notification requirementsSo to claim that Obama stopped warrantless wiretapping is just straight up incorrect.
The bill amended FISA to substitute the requirement of a warrant to conduct surveillance with a system of NSA (National Security Agency) internal controls.[9]
The bill required notification to the FISA Court of warrantless surveillance within 72 hours of any authorization. The bill also required that "a sealed copy of the certification" be sent which would "remain sealed unless the certification is needed to determine the legality of the acquisition."[9]
Domestic wiretapping
The bill allowed the monitoring of all electronic communications of people in the United States without a court's order or oversight, so long as it is not targeted at one particular person "reasonably believed to be" inside the country.[1][10][11]
We have 60 Senate votes? Where were those 60 votes on your precious public option? Lincoln? No. Lieberman? No. Nelson? No.From what I remember, the senate had already passed a version of HCR before it passed the house. In order to pass the bill they had to have a "patch" which fixed differences, which only needed 50 votes. The public option could have been added, and indeed there was a petition signed by 41 democrats arguing that it should have been. In fact, according to this yally 51 senators actually supported adding the public option to the "patch".
Ironmouth: "Let's get this straight. Bush fucked up the economy. Bush fell asleep at the wheel. Unemployment rose every month from Feb '08 to Jan '09. Every month. It has steadily declined since then."That chart is pretty dishonest. It actually shows the derivative of the unemployment rate. That is, the number of newly unemployed people each month, not the unemployment rate rate itself. The chart actually shows the unemployment rate increasing until January of 2010 not 2009, as Ironmouth claimed. The chart also stops in april, when the census was still hiring.
This is true. Why are we not seeing this chart everywhere?
A "patch?" You are disucssing 'reconciliation.' And it would be illegal to use that procedure in the way that was described. Only budget bills can be used with it.Did you even click the fucking link man?
51 senators will vote for a public option in reconciliation if it's sent over by the HouseAre you telling me that you know more about senate procedure then Dick Durban and 42 other senators? Really?
24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation 19 have given statements to us, reporters, or their constituents. 4 more have made statements on video. And 4 are extremely likely based on their previous support for the public option and Senate leadership, even though they haven't made an official statement yet.
"I want to be crystal clear: Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over."
The public option could have been added, and indeed there was a petition signed by 41 democrats arguing that it should have been. In fact, according to this yally 51 senators actually supported adding the public option to the "patch".And I meant to say "this tally". I don't know how I ended up with "yally", anyway Again here is the link. Scroll down for the senate tally.
[The] overwhelming opinion among [process wonks] is that, although the public option might survive the reconciliation process, things like the ban on denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the additional regulations on insurers, and the creation of the health insurance exchanges would almost certainly not. Plus, the bill would have to be deficit neutral over five years and would be subject to renewal every five years.posted by Rhaomi at 4:16 PM on September 28, 2010
If your lone objective were to end up with something that you could call a public option, then yes -- reconciliation offers some possibility of that. But I don't see how you're likely, on balance, to wind up with a better bill -- losing the guaranteed issue provision alone would probably outweigh the inclusion of a public option.
However, the "reconciliation" being talked about in your link is actually the House-Senate conference report where the Senate and House bills are being "reconciled." It is an informal term. Out of the conference comes the "Conference Report." The Conference Report may be filibustered.Cute. But wrong. Here's Ezra Klein, writing in the Washington post.
Sen. Michael Bennet's effort to revive the public option in the reconciliation process is gaining steam, with almost 20 senators signing on to the idea. Among them are Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who are not, shall we say, possessed of a whimsical or quixotic temperament.If you had actually paid attention to how HCR was passed you would understand what was going on, but apparently you didn't. The senate passed a version of the HCR with 60 votes. The house had their own version. Rather then go the normal rout of doing a conference report and having it voted on again (and subject to a filibuster) the house passed the senate's HCR bill as was, which made it law when Obama signed it. then the house passed a second HCR bill which they called a "patch". That bill only delt with the budget, so it could be passed by reconciliation, which it was. The petition was about adding a public option to that patch, or else passing it as a second bill, or whatever.
Of course, you don't need almost 20 senators. You need 51, or more
delmoi, read that FiveThirtyEight piece I linked to, along with this follow-up. Reconciliation was not the magic bullet progressives were hoping for. It might have delivered a public option, but at the cost of a potentially weaker bill that would be easier to repeal.Rhaomi: You're confusing different points in time. If the democrats had tried to do reconciliation-only, then that would have resulted in a weaker (in some ways) bill.
We have a fiscal reality that would be utterly destroyed if the GOP takes power, among many other things.What do you mean by this?
Delmoi, do you have answers to all of those questions? And even if you do -- just like, off the top of the head -- do you acknowledge that all of these questions are of importance and therefore the argument is more nuanced than BROKEN PROMISE/NOT BROKEN PROMISE?Okay look. I was responding to Ironmouth, who said that Obama hadn't broken any promises, despite the fact that he had.
Some folks run riot if faced with the prospect of having detainees in U.S. prisons. Some countries won't agreeSo fuck those people.
Some of these guys need a trial but their cases are tainted with bad evidence (i.e., evidence obtained through torture), so how do we handle that, from a national security point of view.So let them go? that's generally what happens when evidence against someone. These people aren't fucking supervillans. Even if we increase the total number of free terrorists by 150 or whatever, I find it hard to believe it would significantly increase the risk of an attack.
And what would the consequences have been for Blanche Lincoln if she had done that?An extra million dollars a year in her new career has a health-care lobbyist.
The sort of legislative obstructionism that would definitely result in the event of a Republican take-over of one or both houses of Congress would have a disproportionately disastrous effect on the MidwestI see. I wasn't sure what you meant because usually when people talk about "Fiscal" they mean just straight up how much money the government spends. I.E. "Fiscal responsibility" = spending cuts.
Those changes were merely budgetary. The conference report in such situations, may only be debated for blah, blah, blahNo, my facts are right. I don't know why that's so hard for you to deal with. You haven't linked to a single source to back up your assertion, you're just repeating it. I've linked to backup for all of my assertions. Here's another link this one to Nate Silver:
Delmoi, you are a nice guy, but you're facts are way, way, wrong.
I'm not a process wonk, but the overwhelming opinion among people who are is that, although the public option might survive the reconciliation process, things like the ban on denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the additional regulations on insurers, and the creation of the health insurance exchanges would almost certainly not.Again, that he was arguing against using reconciliation, only, claiming that the other regulations were better then having the public option. But there has never been any doubt that the public option could have been passed by reconciliation. And you haven't linked to a single outside source to verify anything you've been saying.
I can pretty much see what the GOP would do: Cut taxes on the rich and wealthy corporations, increase taxes on the middle classThe GOP won't be able to do anything because Obama will still be the president, and will be able to veto any legislation they propose.
What could possibly go wrong with this brilliant plan.It's not a plan. I'm just pointing out that the republicans are not going to have total control over the government if they win. Jesus.
Interesting point, Rhaomi - but then why haven't the Democrats been able to do the same thing? Surely, the Republicans right now are the very definition of inflexible contrarians. So why doesn't this strategy work for the Democrats like you predict it would work for the Republicans?Because the democrats are pussies. Clearly the republicans have a lot more ability to act in concert. A big part of that is the fact that if people don't toe the line, they can lose their seniority on comities, which means if they get power back - they don't become committee chairs.
Are you still proud? You have every right to feel whatever you want to, but, really? The Nader who called Gore and Bush Coke and Pepsi? I'm curious about how you feel now, because, don't you think now that the Coke and Pepsi line was dangerous hogwash?Yeah, and just think as incumbent VP we could have president leiberman now! Wouldn't that just be awesome!
Really... they wanted more Americans to die for healthcare? They wanted continued consumer exploitation? Who needs them?!Of course, HCR doesn't kick in until 2014. So you feel Obama is letting Americans die for 4 years just to make the budget look better over the next 10 years (but with no impact on the ongoing costs) -- and that's somehow fine and morally acceptable?
So, in all honesty, who are you voting for? If you don't vote at all, you can't really claim "clean hands" either. If you don't vote, you're essentially complicit in whatever fallout happens from an electionNo offense, but that doesn't make any fucking sense. People aren't responsible for the actions of others who they don't support. I hate this weird mind-game partisans try to play where if you do don't do what they want, then you are responsible for all the horrible stuff in the world. It's total nonsense and completely incoherent.
a few radar stations? - that is what i call a lieHe's been doing that a lot in this thread. He seems to have a weak grasp on reality. It's kind of like talking to an apple fanboy, who twists everything to make the dems look good instead of Apple. At least with Apple, you know, that stuff doesn't really matter
You're hero's been convicted twice for soliciting prostitution in the US.Oh no! Using hookers!? Well, he definitely deserves to get blown up without a trial! Just think, maybe he'd even looked at internet porn!
Ok for us to bomb Tokyo Rose? Then ok to bomb him. Better to catch him.When did I -- or anyone else -- say that it was OK to bomb Tokyo Rose? I'm not even sure what relevance that has, since she survived the war and was put on trial. Listening to broadcasts it's hard to even see what was so offensive, let alone why she should be tried for treason (let alone bombed).
But my main point was, yes, your shining example of liberty, contrary to Joe's assertion, has indeed been convicted of a crime.That's splitting hairs to an incredible degree. Obviously people mean that he hasn't been convicted of any crime relating to terrorism or the reasons why he's being targeted. You obviously don't believe the lives of anyone ever convicted of any crime, regardless of how minor should therefore be able to be killed later on by the government. So I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Again, not appreciating being "the girl you'll take under the bleachers but won't be seen with in public", as the blogger from Crooks and Liars put it, is not equivalent to deciding to vote for the second coming of Ralph Nader (another convenient scapegoat for the failures of the Democratic Party). From all appearances, the left is being set up to take the fall, the scapegoat of the year just like Nader or "weak" candidates or prejudiced red state voters too stupid to vote their own interests or that unstoppable Republican powerhouse that no one could possibly be expected to stand up to or anyone, anyone except the Democratic Party's leadership itself.Remember in 2006, after the massive wave election which swept tons of democrats into office? Right after that James Carville started bashing Howard Dean for, like, no reason. It was obvious that Dean had shown up the beltway establishment, including Rahm Emmanuel and that pissed them off more then winning made them happy. Rahm has always done well at trying to lay blame on other people and escape blame for his own failures. They'd laid the foundation for blaming dean on a loss, and Carville "Went off" despite the fact that they actually won.
That's it. That's what's important. So if your politics lean left, please do vote for the crap-ass Democrats, because it matters. They don't deserve your vote, really, but it's important. Save the protest vote for 2012.I'm not sure if you're aware of this: But you can vote for different candidates for different offices.
« Older In a survey of Americans' religious knowledge cond... | POM Wonderful may not be so wo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by beagle at 1:21 PM on September 28, 2010