The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

A simpler way of looking at how the narrative in American politics is laden with false equivalences is with regards to tackling the deficit. Ever since 2008, the narrative has been that the Democrats want to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes and the Republicans want to do it by reducing spending and oh if only some way could be found to find a middle ground between the two. But that middle ground was there all along. It was the policy of the Democrats to have a combination of tax increases and spending cuts while the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent anything that had even the whiff of a tax increase. There simply is no possibility of establishing a 'middle ground' when the Republicans refuse to engage in any horse trading. And while I make no apologies for viewing the policies of the GOP with contempt, I reserve my greatest disdain for the media who refuse to place the blame for gridlock where it belongs out of some misplaced notion of 'balance'.

Remember in the primary debates last time out when no Republican would agree to raise taxes by one dollar for every ten in cuts?!!!

(Huntsman, god bless his sane little heart, might have been an exception)

[deiseach]

Remember in the primary debates last time out when no Republican would agree to raise taxes by one dollar for every ten in cuts?!!!

(Huntsman, god bless his sane little heart, might have been an exception)

Grover Norquist was hovering over each and every one of them like the ghost of Banquo.

[muppet]

A simpler way of looking at how the narrative in American politics is laden with false equivalences is with regards to tackling the deficit. Ever since 2008, the narrative has been that the Democrats want to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes and the Republicans want to do it by reducing spending and oh if only some way could be found to find a middle ground between the two. But that middle ground was there all along. It was the policy of the Democrats to have a combination of tax increases and spending cuts while the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent anything that had even the whiff of a tax increase. There simply is no possibility of establishing a 'middle ground' when the Republicans refuse to engage in any horse trading. And while I make no apologies for viewing the policies of the GOP with contempt, I reserve my greatest disdain for the media who refuse to place the blame for gridlock where it belongs out of some misplaced notion of 'balance'.

Remember in the primary debates last time out when no Republican would agree to raise taxes by one dollar for every ten in cuts?!!!

(Huntsman, god bless his sane little heart, might have been an exception)

Better than that, Obama and the Republicans agreed to lower taxes and increase spending. This, they considered, was good for everyone. They don't pay back any of their debt, ever. They just roll it over. When that ship comes in.....wow.

[seafoid]

A simpler way of looking at how the narrative in American politics is laden with false equivalences is with regards to tackling the deficit. Ever since 2008, the narrative has been that the Democrats want to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes and the Republicans want to do it by reducing spending and oh if only some way could be found to find a middle ground between the two. But that middle ground was there all along. It was the policy of the Democrats to have a combination of tax increases and spending cuts while the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent anything that had even the whiff of a tax increase. There simply is no possibility of establishing a 'middle ground' when the Republicans refuse to engage in any horse trading. And while I make no apologies for viewing the policies of the GOP with contempt, I reserve my greatest disdain for the media who refuse to place the blame for gridlock where it belongs out of some misplaced notion of 'balance'.

Better than that, Obama and the Republicans agreed to lower taxes and increase spending. This, they considered, was good for everyone. They don't pay back any of their debt, ever. They just roll it over. When that ship comes in.....wow.

Remember in the primary debates last time out when no Republican would agree to raise taxes by one dollar for every ten in cuts?!!!

(Huntsman, god bless his sane little heart, might have been an exception)

Both parties are beholden to the people who fund them- the plutocrats - who don't fund politics out of a sense of duty. They get rewarded politically.  Since citizens united there is no limit to how much the rich can pump into politics.
You end up with people like Elizabeth Warren who won't say anything against Israel.
Or Mary Landrieu who won't say anything against oil and gas.
The big question is can the GOP plutocrats come up with a candidate who can interact with reality.

[deiseach]

I wouldn't delude myself that the Democrats are not in hock to big business, but perfect is the enemy of good. It is not a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

[seafoid]

I wouldn't delude myself that the Democrats are not in hock to big business, but perfect is the enemy of good. It is not a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

The whole system is rotten. I don't think the Dems are a shadow of what they were pre Reagan. Carter was the last decent president. The last Keynesian one as well.

This is a good read on the cancerous influence of the ultra rich on US democracy

http://www.kennys.ie/wealth-and-democracy.html

[whitey]

Did you watch the clip?

The bill was specifically written in a "tortured" manner (his words, not mine) so as to hide its true costs.

I don't know what you work at, but in my line of work, if I pulled something like that on a client, I would be looking at about 10 years in jail.

In what country do you work?

What planet more likely.

And I did watch the clip. I see a fool boasting about his own self-importance.

And show me the law that puts you in jail for 10 years for writing something in a 'tortured' manner or indeed to hide true costs.

I'm not a legal expert, but at a minimum, I would expect them to go after him for perjury, conspiracy and fraud all of which carry very hefty penalties.  Whether they can get a conviction, thats another issue, but I would not like to be in his shoes right now. This beatdown is going to be epic

[muppet]

Did you watch the clip?

The bill was specifically written in a "tortured" manner (his words, not mine) so as to hide its true costs.

I don't know what you work at, but in my line of work, if I pulled something like that on a client, I would be looking at about 10 years in jail.

In what country do you work?

What planet more likely.

And I did watch the clip. I see a fool boasting about his own self-importance.

And show me the law that puts you in jail for 10 years for writing something in a 'tortured' manner or indeed to hide true costs.

I'm not a legal expert, but at a minimum, I would expect them to go after him for perjury, conspiracy and fraud all of which carry very hefty penalties.  Whether they can get a conviction, thats another issue, but I would not like to be in his shoes right now. This beatdown is going to be epic

If you live in tabloid land.

[seafoid]

There was a story there a while ago about a former governor of Virginia who had racked up a load of debt and had no money to buy his wife a dress for his inauguration. She found a Denis O Brien type to fund it and all hell broke lose afterwards. 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303802904579335020828498200

[whitey]

The electability thing was what spurred the Republicans to go for Romney. You can be sure the base - they're the ones who actually vote in GOP primaries - are not going to allow themselves to be suckered into that kind of choice again.

But then they'll lose again. An orthodox Republican who ticks all the boxes with the Tea Party will get slaughtered.
And they don't have that many moderates left.   

There are 300 people on each side working to find videos like this to sink the other side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

Bet your life there are.....the Republicans wont get caught flat footed again.

I can only imagine what was said at some of Obamas close door fundraisers-LOL (but we will never know)

Did he not get into trouble for the "cling to guns and religion" comment back in 2008? Did the right wing not flog that to death?

Actually he said it during the primaries so he got hammered by Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates (but Im sure the Republicans jumped on in due course)

Big difference between the two events is that Obamas statements were made during an event that was being openly recorded by numerous parties. He just let his guard down

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=all

If thats what Obama was prepared to say in Public while being recorded, I can only imagine what he was saying behind closed doors when no one was recording

Romney's statements on the other hand, were captured by a waiter who hid a recording device in a potted plant during an event that was a "closed mic" fundraiser.

In this day and age, any politician (or public speaker of any kind) who doesn't assume they may be recorded is an idiot, invited guests only,  or not.

Obama's point in that case was a fair one, I thought. Obviously too honest for the ridiculous "gotcha" political commentary industry, but true nonetheless.  The Republicans regularly use those issues as wedge issues to distract voters.

Spot on.....exactly the same way the Democrats have used the "War on women" to pander to their low information base

To a point,  but not exactly equivalent.  E.g. the GOP used gay marriage referendums to great effect in 2004 to turn out the evangelicals, but let's face it, how exactly does gay people getting married affect the actual lives of anyone beyond the gay people themselves?  And the fictitious " War on christians"? (Fox should be starting any day now on their annual Christmas "outrages") The non-existent threat to gun ownership rights?

On the other hand,  advocating that health insurance cover contraception or that women be trusted to make their own decisions on abortions, without invasive procedures or emotional blackmail is acting on real concerns for women.  Disagree with abortion or not, those are issues that actually affect woman. Another example -it's interesting that of the 5 Republicans who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act in the Senate, 4 were woman, and the 5th later switched to the Dems.

Of course,  I am sure Democrats also seize any opportunity to distract their potential voters from the real issues. Thats what politicians do. Just don't agree on THOSE particular issues.

Thats fair.  Did you see that Alan Dershowitz, the very far left Harvard Law professor, sided with Hobby Lobby in their supreme court battle over. Kinda blew a hole in the whole War on Women rhetoric (on that one aspect anyway)

[muppet]

I'm not a legal expert, but at a minimum, I would expect them to go after him for perjury, conspiracy and fraud all of which carry very hefty penalties

For a lack of transparency and for calling voters stupid. 

But go on.

Let's start with the perjury. Explain how he is guilty of perjury.

[whitey]

I'm not a legal expert, but at a minimum, I would expect them to go after him for perjury, conspiracy and fraud all of which carry very hefty penalties

For a lack of transparency and for calling voters stupid. 

But go on.

Let's start with the perjury. Explain how he is guilty of perjury.
[/quoti

Its very complicated and I'm not a legal expert, but what I heard from a credible source,  is that he testified before a congressional committee at least once when they were trying to pass the law.

Theres an army of attorneys currently pouring over every word of his testimony to see if anything he said then, contradicts what has come out on the tape.

They will also suponea every email he ever sent or received to see if they can pin him with conspiracy.

My guess is that someone as sloppy as him has left a trail of breadcrumbs behind him

[J70]

The electability thing was what spurred the Republicans to go for Romney. You can be sure the base - they're the ones who actually vote in GOP primaries - are not going to allow themselves to be suckered into that kind of choice again.

But then they'll lose again. An orthodox Republican who ticks all the boxes with the Tea Party will get slaughtered.
And they don't have that many moderates left.   

There are 300 people on each side working to find videos like this to sink the other side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

Bet your life there are.....the Republicans wont get caught flat footed again.

I can only imagine what was said at some of Obamas close door fundraisers-LOL (but we will never know)

Did he not get into trouble for the "cling to guns and religion" comment back in 2008? Did the right wing not flog that to death?

Actually he said it during the primaries so he got hammered by Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates (but Im sure the Republicans jumped on in due course)

Big difference between the two events is that Obamas statements were made during an event that was being openly recorded by numerous parties. He just let his guard down

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=all

If thats what Obama was prepared to say in Public while being recorded, I can only imagine what he was saying behind closed doors when no one was recording

Romney's statements on the other hand, were captured by a waiter who hid a recording device in a potted plant during an event that was a "closed mic" fundraiser.

In this day and age, any politician (or public speaker of any kind) who doesn't assume they may be recorded is an idiot, invited guests only,  or not.

Obama's point in that case was a fair one, I thought. Obviously too honest for the ridiculous "gotcha" political commentary industry, but true nonetheless.  The Republicans regularly use those issues as wedge issues to distract voters.

Spot on.....exactly the same way the Democrats have used the "War on women" to pander to their low information base

To a point,  but not exactly equivalent.  E.g. the GOP used gay marriage referendums to great effect in 2004 to turn out the evangelicals, but let's face it, how exactly does gay people getting married affect the actual lives of anyone beyond the gay people themselves?  And the fictitious " War on christians"? (Fox should be starting any day now on their annual Christmas "outrages") The non-existent threat to gun ownership rights?

On the other hand,  advocating that health insurance cover contraception or that women be trusted to make their own decisions on abortions, without invasive procedures or emotional blackmail is acting on real concerns for women.  Disagree with abortion or not, those are issues that actually affect woman. Another example -it's interesting that of the 5 Republicans who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act in the Senate, 4 were woman, and the 5th later switched to the Dems.

Of course,  I am sure Democrats also seize any opportunity to distract their potential voters from the real issues. Thats what politicians do. Just don't agree on THOSE particular issues.

Thats fair.  Did you see that Alan Dershowitz, the very far left Harvard Law professor, sided with Hobby Lobby in their supreme court battle over. Kinda blew a hole in the whole War on Women rhetoric (on that one aspect anyway)

He's also a very determined defender of Israel!

My problem with Hobby Lobby is where do you draw the line. If they can drop contraception from their health plan, is it ok for someone else to drop childhood vaccines, or if it is only religious exemptions, blood transfusions for a Jehovah's Witness employer.  Say someone like Tom Cruise doesn't believe in psychiatry,  should we not cover that?

Be careful what you wish for!

BTW, why was Dershowitz on their side? Legal technicality or idealogical.

I don't think one dissenter is enough to discredit anything however!

[whitey]

The electability thing was what spurred the Republicans to go for Romney. You can be sure the base - they're the ones who actually vote in GOP primaries - are not going to allow themselves to be suckered into that kind of choice again.

But then they'll lose again. An orthodox Republican who ticks all the boxes with the Tea Party will get slaughtered.
And they don't have that many moderates left.   

There are 300 people on each side working to find videos like this to sink the other side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

Bet your life there are.....the Republicans wont get caught flat footed again.

I can only imagine what was said at some of Obamas close door fundraisers-LOL (but we will never know)

Did he not get into trouble for the "cling to guns and religion" comment back in 2008? Did the right wing not flog that to death?

Actually he said it during the primaries so he got hammered by Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates (but Im sure the Republicans jumped on in due course)

Big difference between the two events is that Obamas statements were made during an event that was being openly recorded by numerous parties. He just let his guard down

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=all

If thats what Obama was prepared to say in Public while being recorded, I can only imagine what he was saying behind closed doors when no one was recording

Romney's statements on the other hand, were captured by a waiter who hid a recording device in a potted plant during an event that was a "closed mic" fundraiser.

In this day and age, any politician (or public speaker of any kind) who doesn't assume they may be recorded is an idiot, invited guests only,  or not.

Obama's point in that case was a fair one, I thought. Obviously too honest for the ridiculous "gotcha" political commentary industry, but true nonetheless.  The Republicans regularly use those issues as wedge issues to distract voters.

Spot on.....exactly the same way the Democrats have used the "War on women" to pander to their low information base

To a point,  but not exactly equivalent.  E.g. the GOP used gay marriage referendums to great effect in 2004 to turn out the evangelicals, but let's face it, how exactly does gay people getting married affect the actual lives of anyone beyond the gay people themselves?  And the fictitious " War on christians"? (Fox should be starting any day now on their annual Christmas "outrages") The non-existent threat to gun ownership rights?

On the other hand,  advocating that health insurance cover contraception or that women be trusted to make their own decisions on abortions, without invasive procedures or emotional blackmail is acting on real concerns for women.  Disagree with abortion or not, those are issues that actually affect woman. Another example -it's interesting that of the 5 Republicans who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act in the Senate, 4 were woman, and the 5th later switched to the Dems.

Of course,  I am sure Democrats also seize any opportunity to distract their potential voters from the real issues. Thats what politicians do. Just don't agree on THOSE particular issues.

Thats fair.  Did you see that Alan Dershowitz, the very far left Harvard Law professor, sided with Hobby Lobby in their supreme court battle over. Kinda blew a hole in the whole War on Women rhetoric (on that one aspect anyway)

He's also a very determined defender of Israel!

My problem with Hobby Lobby is where do you draw the line. If they can drop contraception from their health plan, is it ok for someone else to drop childhood vaccines, or if it is only religious exemptions, blood transfusions for a Jehovah's Witness employer.  Say someone like Tom Cruise doesn't believe in psychiatry,  should we not cover that?

Be careful what you wish for!

BTW, why was Dershowitz on their side? Legal technicality or idealogical.

I don't think one dissenter is enough to discredit anything however!

When the one dissenter you mention is one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country and rabid supporter of the Democratic agenda, I think his dissent holds a little more weight than your or mine opinion.

According to an extensive interview I listened to at the time of the ruling, the law was on Holly Hobbies side.

(Satellite radio and traffic jams are a wonderful thing)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hobby-lobby-case-creates-unexpected-allies-in-alan-dershowitz-and-kenneth-starr/2014/03/25/3e9d0936-b45a-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

[muppet]

I'm not a legal expert, but at a minimum, I would expect them to go after him for perjury, conspiracy and fraud all of which carry very hefty penalties

For a lack of transparency and for calling voters stupid. 

But go on.

Let's start with the perjury. Explain how he is guilty of perjury.

Its very complicated and I'm not a legal expert, but what I heard from a credible source,  is that he testified before a congressional committee at least once when they were trying to pass the law.

Theres an army of attorneys currently pouring over every word of his testimony to see if anything he said then, contradicts what has come out on the tape.

They will also suponea every email he ever sent or received to see if they can pin him with conspiracy.

My guess is that someone as sloppy as him has left a trail of breadcrumbs behind him

And that in a nutshell sums up Republicans. That is precisely how they view democracy. They either get what they want via a democratic vote, or they undermine a democratic vote and get it via other means.