South Carolina sez Rick Santorum is too moderate
Dave Weigel (no liberal) at Slate:
Rick Santorum is the lone "compassionate conservative" in the race, the only one who talks about protectionist trade, rebuilding manufacturing, and income inequality. (Yes, yes -- , his as Yglesias points out, his tax plan is still regressive. But we're grading on a curve.) He utterly failed to convince conservatives that he -- a happily married father of seven with a serious record of wins in Congress -- was the right anti-Romney. It's not a fair fight, and I'm sure Santorum could win over most Gingrich voters in a lab experiment, but you have to consider why Santorum's specific brand of populism falters as Gingrich's big-picture, Glenn Beck-ian anger thrives. Gingrich and Ron Paul are the most apocalyptic candidates, insistent that America is run by socialists who risk destroying everything. Santorum won't go that far. At a Chamber of Commerce event I wrote about this week, Santorum was the only one of three candidates (Gingrich and Perry were the others) who argued that the National Labor Relations Board might be fixed, not defunded and destroyed. Not good enough!
This is the context in which we're fighting for climate realism within the Republican Party.
Posts
61 comments:
A Gingrich nomination would certainly represent the triumph -- and quite likely the high-water mark -- of comment-thread-troll conservatism. His arrogance, hypocrisy, cultivated air of fake expertise, and bland assertions of utter nonsense are all pathognomonic.
And what are clowns like Monckton, Watts, Goddard et al but, as Krugman said of Gingrich, "A dumb person's idea of what a smart person sounds like"?
I used to be a Republican. I watched Fox News. But I was tired of those Glen Beck rants and the lack of real news and information. Then Climategate happened, and I saw how the denialists were lying.
Today I opened a "census." It was really a questionnaire from the Republican National Committee.
I called and said to take me off the list because the Republicans are endangering national security by lying about climate change.
Do you know what "Fred" said? He claimed that the Republican party doesn't have a position on climate change and that they have all different views on climate change in the party.
I called him a liar. I said I know they give money to Cuccinelli and that he persecutes scientists. I said I hope Cuccinelli ends up in jail. Then I hung up.
They often call for money, but I tell them I now vote Democrat because the Republicans deny climate change.
I don't consider Republicans conservative. They are very radical. They want to destroy the federal government and all our protections. So what are they conserving?
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Snapple
hmm, you wouldn't have just completely made that up, would you?
@thetracker
compared to Obama, Gingrich is better and has more sanity. I am confused that leftists like yourself do not push Hilary to run. Hilary is actually smart and knows how to spend money, she could get votes from Republicans. Also, the tracker, I can't imagine that you enjoy Obama giving Warren Buffet billions of dollars in bailout money.
Dear Jay Cadbury,
Well, why don't you call "Fred" at the RNC and describe what I said. See what he says. 202-863-8500
I am an expert on the USSR and Russia. Their propaganda in the official media is the same as the denialists in the West. When I see Monckton, O'Sullivan, Pat Michaels, and Piers Corbyn on the Kremlin-financed Russia Today, I know the Republicans have gone over to the dark side.
When I see Cuccinelli's legal briefs citing the Russian government press agency RIA Novosti, I know they are collaborating with the Russian petrostate.
Gingrich is a slimeball.
Obama got Bin Laden. He has so far kept us out of a depression. Hillary is also very smart, but she is getting old.
I consider the Republicans subversives who are undermining our national security by persecuting and intimidating our scientists.
They even encourage people to make terroristic comments to scientists and their families.
They are conspiring against our people for money.
I hope the FBI catches up with those people who stole the emails and mischaracterized them.
I accept what the science organizations, the Pentagon, the CIA, the National Intelligence Council, and the Vatican tell me: climate change is real.
The National Intelligence Council accepts the UN IPCC.
Pretty soon, Cucccinelli is going to slip on a banana peel because he is abusing his office by hijacking it on behalf of his family's business--lobbying for the gas industry.
Let's see. If Obama had actually pushed hard, as in really hard, for a climate regulation agreement, will we even be talking about this?
As I said, Republican candidates claim loudly that global warming isn't a problem; Obama simply behaves as if global warming isn't a problem -- witness his actions on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Oh, and I'm sure at this point someone will chime in with, 'But Obama changed his stance on the Keystone XL pipeline! It means he's someone we can work with!' Yeah, if you need to gather 12,000 protesters to surround the White House and threaten not to vote for him -- that sure sounds like 'someone we can work with!'
If you want real results on climate change, look to real action, such as carbon tariffs. Not to politicos in both parties who move their lips.
-- frank
"Obama simply behaves as if global warming isn't a problem"
1) At least 12,000 protestors changed his mind. Millions of protestors failed to change George W.'s mind on Iraq.
2) Obama does have the EPA moving to regulate CO2 sources under the Clean Air Act. Yes, not as quickly as some would like, but it is better to do things slowly but well than to act hastily and actually push Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act to exclude GHGs, or do something that the courts will overturn (see CAIR mark 1).
3) The stimulus bill had a lot of clean energy technology funding. I am not Pielke, who thinks that climate policy both starts and ends there, but it is a part of the climate success pie.
-MMM
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Snapple
okay well what you just said is the same charge skeptics level at true believers like yourself. Dr. Happer often references the Lysenko incident in Russia as proof that the true believers are subverting science, so you make a poor point.
@anonymous
"millions failed to persuade George Bush not to invade Iraq".
Right, and millions also failed to persuade Obama not to pass the new healthcare law. The only difference being that we citizens will be forced to pay for Obamacare, whereas our support of the Iraq war was both free and optional. Now, somebody is going to claim that it was not free because it wasn't paid for..guess what, a lot of government programs aren't paid for, including social security and highway funding, so it is a stupid point to make. The government could have cut spending in other areas to offset the cost of the war. Also, Bush's tax cut does not count as additional spending which Eli will attempt to lie about, unless you believe like Eli that the money originated in the government in the first place.
Looks like some heads are going to explode at the end of 2012. Pass the popcorn, lies and projection abound. The left's first darling was Huntsman now it's Santorum. When the other side wants to pick your candidate for you, you best ignore their generous advice.
btw, Eli does not understand anything about tax revenues.
Celery Eater
@anonymous
"millions failed to persuade George Bush not to invade Iraq".
Except more than three times as many supported the initiation of the Iraq war. Must not re-write history now.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-anniversary
Celery Eater
@ MMM
Protestors did not change Obama's mind on the pipeline. It was the GOP-dominated Nebraska legislature that did by insisting the pipeline must not be routed through the Sand Hills as initially proposed.
Obama essentially gave them until after the 2012 election to find a new route (and himself from breathing room.) Then another hostage was taken in congress and Obama was forced to decide before Feb 21, 2012.
He did not approve the pipeline but, according to the WaPo: "But he (Obama) left the door open to the possibility that a new proposal might pass regulatory muster." And "The administration will allow TransCanada to reapply for a permit after it develops an alternate route around the Nebraska Sandhills, a sensitive habitat." http://tinyurl.com/73r358v
The Congressional Research Service then released their analysis that congress has the authority to approve the pipeline itself.
The Pollyanna Corps insist Obama would veto such a bill. Right, like the dissolving veto threat on the NDAA provision allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without charge or trial.
Even IF Obama lives up to his limp signing statement promise to NOT use the powers just given him, we can certainly start an interesting blog "office pool" on the first ten US citizens disappeared by a President Newtie "every Dem is a traitor" Gingrich.)
It will be interesting to see, in this election year, (all House and some 22 Dem senators), if such a bill might just pass with a veto proof majority.
John Puma
J. Cadbury--
You aren't making any sense. The western denialists appear on Russia Today. Cuccinelli cites RIA Novosti in his attacks on the EPA.
This are facts, not charges.
Experts on climate science aren't like Lysenko. Lysenko is like the denialists.
Fact is,the Russians know perfectly well that climate change is happening. They are building sea walls for floods and trying to figure out how thawing permafrost will effect their country and gas industry.
Experts on climate science aren't like Lysenko. Lysenko is like the denialists.
In other words, Stalinist biology was much like Tea Party climate science ... crackpottery.
@J. Cadbury
"whereas our support of the Iraq war was both free and optional."
Are you serious? It definitely wasn't free. Several hundred billion dollars and American and Iraqi lives. Whether one supported it or not, we all were forced to pay dollars out of our pockets for it. There was no way of opting out of tax dollars going to pay for the war if you didn't believe the weak evidence that Iraq had WMD and worked with al-Qaeda.
@J. Cadbury
As far as you saying it could have been paid for by cutting in other areas or it was borrowed money, that is irrelevant because we are all forced to pay whether we supported it or not. Therefore your example goes against your point. Fail.
To those who disagreed with my "millions protested the Iraq war" point:
1) It was in direct response to Frank's attempt to take away credit from Obama for nixing Keystone XL
2) Celery Eater: Let's be careful about rewriting history, shall we? The poll you point to has a data point at "March 2003": it isn't clear if that is pre or post invasion. A more nuanced look - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm - would suggest 50/50 support in the US. And the existence of 50% support for the war does not eliminate the fact that millions protested against it - see above Keystone protest numbers, which don't come with a convenient nation-wide poll attached.
3) Dr. JC Phd: Really? Free and optional? Wow, your understanding of the way wars are funded is worse than your understanding of climate science, and that's saying something.
4) John, yes, the XL decision was due to a number of factors, and one of the largest was Congress forcing a decision when the studies that Obama wanted were still incomplete. But when push came to shove, Obama did make a decision to nix it, and he could have chosen not to.
Finally: Celery Eater: Do you really think Santorum is taking the Huntsman role? Rabett isn't saying that Santorum is the liberal's favorite candidate, he's pointing out that in _one area_ Santorum is making a tiny bit of sense while the rest of the Republican field is running for the crazy hills, and in such an environment, can we expect Republicans to make sense in _any_ field?
-MMM
The Iraq war was not paid for, Bush and the Republican Congress and Senate put it on the charge card.
MMM,
That USA today poll was pointless as I provided a link to show support for the war for over 5 years.
I would think those on the left would want the crazy candidate to run from the Republicans, how hard could it be to beat a crazy person unless the incumbent was a total moron who has made everything worse, oh wait.
Eli,
And Obama and the Dems saw the Republicans level of debt spending and took it to new levels never seen before. Question is, what do we do now?
Celery Eater
In other words, Stalinist biology was much like Tea Party climate science ... crackpottery.
The same could be said of the OWS work ethic, extend hand and beg with expectations of receiving.
Celery Eater
@Eli
It might be on a charge card, but as taxpayers we can't opt out of paying for it if we didn't support the reason behind going to war with Iraq. So J. Cadbury's comparison of the Affordable Health Care Act and the Iraq War is faulty. We are all forced to pay, there is no opting out if you opposed it. Not to mention the interest on the borrowed money.
@Celery Eater
Much of the debt lies in the continued occupation of foreign countries. I'll have to look for the CBO report but we could make a huge dent in the debt by bringing home troops throughout the world. It amazes me that so many neo-cons are willing to spend money overseas and aren't willing to spend anywhere near the same money on the citizens of their own country, THE USA.
"At least 12,000 protestors changed his mind. Millions of protestors failed to change George W.'s mind on Iraq."
That's a pretty low standard to surpass. And it just furthers my point that Obama behaves as if global warming isn't a problem.
He stopped Keystone XL not because he's afraid of global warming, but because he's scared of losing votes. If it'd been because of global warming, he wouldn't have needed 12,000 people to change his mind. 1 person would've been enough.
If you had a co-worker about to do something stupid, and you had to bring in 12,000 people to convince him not to do the stupid thing, would you say 'He avoids doing stupid things?' Or 'He's someone we can work with?'
* * *
"2) Obama does have the EPA moving to regulate CO2 sources under the Clean Air Act. Yes, not as quickly as some would like, but it is better to do things slowly but well than to act hastily and actually push Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act to exclude GHGs, or do something that the courts will overturn (see CAIR mark 1)."
I don't get that last point. Are there some special types of administrative or legislative moves that are somehow magically immune to any challenge via the courts? What are these moves, and what gives them this magical property?
Or is this just an argument that Obama supporters made up to comfort themselves?
As far as I can tell, there was no good reason whatsoever for Obama to kill the climate bill before the Senate, and no good reason whatsoever for Obama to put absolutely nothing on the table during the UNFCCC meetings.
* * *
J. Cadbury "PhD":
"whereas our support of the Iraq war was both free and optional."
What other said: you're an utter idiot. Please get lost.
-- frank
Perhaps Obama did it for Buffett, a hero here at Rabett Run.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html
Nah it couldn't be.
Much of the debt is not fron military overseas bases and expenditures, estimate range around $100 billion per year.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/16-reasons-why-the-united-states-can-no-longer-afford-to-be-the-police-of-the-world
We should work towards making that number smaller and close some overseas bases, but that is not going to balance the current deficit of ~$1.65 trillion.
Celery Eater
@Celery Eater
From your link...
#6 When you throw in all "off budget" items and other categories of "defense spending" not covered in the Pentagon budget you get a grand total of somewhere between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion spent on national defense in 2010
#12 Over the past decade, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers well over a trillion dollars.
Saving money in this area (2 Wars that continue to add to the deficit and debt because they were on borrowed money) would take a big chuck out of the debt. I never claimed it would erase it. We are on the right course in those two countries at the moment as far as getting out.
JRC,
I see we are moving goal posts now.
You said "Much of the debt lies in the continued occupation of foreign countries."
Not even close. Now if you had said the entire budget for all defense related programs (that includes retirement and other veteran benefits) if eliminated could get us 2/3 of the way to balancing the deficit you would have a point.
I do not know where you are going to go next, as you are changing the arguement faster than Obama spends money (average of up 14% in each of the last 3 years).
oh and please tell me what $1 trillion divided by ten is?
Celery Eater
@Celery Eater
I'm not trying to move goal posts. I know what 1 trillion divided by 10 is, but that is for 2 Wars not the bases throughout the world. That is a separate amount. Correct? Are you moving goalposts now?
I will say, yes I misstated about the bases. I meant bases, plus 2 wars. Now in your link it says to maintain bases is 100 billion. Does that include operational costs or is that just the cost to maintain them? Hmmmmmmmmm
That is the total cost. $100 billion per year for the bases and $100 billion (average) a year for the two fronts of the war.
Now tell me what is $1.65 trillion minus $200 billion?
Celery Eater
@Celery Eater
Just to show I'm not trying to move goal posts. When I first posted I remembered incorrectly. It was not just the spending on Wars and other military adventurism and bases. It was an article about the CBO looking at those cost (plus interest on borrowed money for the war) plus Bush Era tax cuts.
So in that case, I apologize for failing to include expiration of Bush Tax cuts along with war.
@Celery Eater
No you are correct. I was incorrect on just how much. It's only 12 percent. Question to you would be "What other area of spending is more than that 12 percent?"
I'm not trying to move goal posts. I admit that my initial post was incorrect as I stated it.
I'm asking that question because I'm curious and wonder it you know the answer.
I'm trying to have a discussion which sometimes leads you to a change in the direction of the conversation.
So I'm trying to be civil and admit errors or what have you. I made a mistake just like you did when you tried the 1 trillion divided by 10 when that applied to the wars and not the bases.
All of the Bush tax cuts or only those on those who make $250k or more a year? If the latter that will only add $70 billion a year (in theory) to the Federal coffers. If theformer, well that's $330 billion a year, but raises taxes on everyone.
Well you are up to $530 billion of $1.65 trillion. You ended the two battle fronts of the war, closed all overseas military bases and raised taxes on everyone. Now what?
Celery Eater
@Celery Eater
Next I would raise the Social Security age. I'm under 55 (not saying just how much younger) and I think we need to increase the age. I have no problem with the idea of working to say 70 for those that are currently under 55.
Would it have an immediate impact on the deficit? Probably not. But for projected future debt I believe it would.
@Celery Eater
Also by having the military at home we could cut into the pentagon budget a little more as well.
Also stop subsidizing businesses that move jobs overseas. Well, really phase out most corporate welfare period.
Re-examine the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Allow people to buy drugs from Canada or any other country if they choose to do so, and are willing to take the risk.
These are just off the top of my head.
Do you have an area to cut or should we raise the AMT to Reagan levels or 1950's levels? I'm not exactly for that, but we still have growth even at those higher levels.
Military spending and the cost of the stimulus bill aren't negligible, but they are not the drivers of the debt.
1) The current deficits are due to the collapse in tax revenue and the increase in automatic stabilizers due to the weak economy. Trillion+ dollar deficits would exist no matter who was elected president.
2) Medium term deficits are driven by the Bush tax cuts. "Doing nothing" would stabilize debt to gdp.
3) The long term deficit is driven by healthcare spending.
The bond market cares about 2 and 3. It does not care about #1.
Also, below are the real and projected deficits since 2009. Remember that the fiscal year begins in October of the previous year. i.e. FY2009 began 4 months before Obama took office.
2009 $1,413
2010 $1,294
2011 $1,284 (est)
2012 $ 973 (proj)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12316/08-24-BudgetEconUpdate.pdf
The projected size of deficits change throughout the year based primarily on the strength of the economy -- ie. how many people are paying taxes and how much are they making (paying).
Those numbers are in billions.
Sorry.
Minor quibble 1: Iraq + Afghanistan expenditures were 170 billion in 2011.
Quibble 2: On the support for the Iraq war: Celery Eater, you have to compare like to like. Which means support _before_ the war to support _before_ the Keystone XL decision. Of course support goes up the instant we invade a foreign country, the "rally around the flag" effect is well documented.
3: "Are there some special types of administrative or legislative moves that are somehow magically immune to any challenge via the courts? " No, there are no "magic moves" but doing things slowly and carefully not only helps prevent mistakes but also helps protect an action from being deemed "arbitrary and capricious" - the courts pay considerable attention to process. And who knows how Congress makes decisions these days, but I would certainly consider it more likely that they'd put a spanner in the works if the EPA was pushing the limits than if EPA moves slowly and deliberately, starting with the groundwork for GHG control under the Clean Air Act (done, though final court arguments aren't until the end of February), vehicle standards (done, for both light and heavy duty vehicles), a GHG registry (done), moving to new power plant standards (almost done), and then, in time, to existing power plant standards (in progress), and so forth.
Obama can't do much in the UNFCCC without legislative support at home (after all, what did Clinton and Gore accomplish with Kyoto without Congressional support?). Obama can't pass legislation with the current Congress. He could probably do a better job of selling the American people on these things, which might eventually translate to Congressional support, but that's hard in the middle of a recession. He isn't a dictator, he's a democratically elected President in a system with strong checks and balances, and that means one has to be realistic about the rate of progress.
-MMM
"it is better to do things slowly but well than to act hastily and actually push Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act to exclude GHGs, or do something that the courts will overturn"
"doing things slowly and carefully not only helps prevent mistakes but also helps protect an action from being deemed 'arbitrary and capricious'"
MMM, you see, your 'Obama must avoid judicial challenges' reasoning would've been more believable if it hadn't been used, regarding Don't Ask Dont' Tell, to 'justify' why Obama should not go the executive and route and absolutely must wait for Congressional approval.
When the same 'argument' can be used to 'justify' two diametrically opposed courses of action, it does sound like bullshit to me.
"He could probably do a better job of selling the American people on these things, which might eventually translate to Congressional support, but that's hard in the middle of a recession."
Whether it's hard or not doesn't matter. Obama didn't try. He continually gave a free pass to oilmen while dragging his feet on the climate mitigation front.
I repeat: Obama didn't try.
That is the frigging problem. And I won't be surprised if, after the EPA had started implementing its greenhouse gas emissions standards, the rest of the Obama administration decides to flagrantly ignore or subvert them themselves. Obama tried that with Keystone XL; he can try it again.
"a system with strong checks and balances"
O RLY?!?!?!?!?!?
-- frank
Frank,
First, if you expected the first black President of US to be a bombthrower, then you are delusional.
Second, I don't know if you noticed or not, but a President cannot address every issue that confronts him. Have you looked how far down climate change ranks on the lists of concerns of the US public? Hell half of Americans don't even believe it is happening.
Third, Obama's first job is to get re-elected, because if he doesn't, everything he worked for is undone. So if you want to blame someone, I suggest you blame the average, stupid American voter.
Finally, the Congress did everything it could to make him fail. The Rethuglicans actually announced it as their top priority--and he got little more support from his own party. Frankly, I'm hoping he gets re-elected just so I can watch their racist heads explode.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, that was a boatload of Obama apologetics that addresses none of the key problems I mentioned in my comment.
-- frank
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@frank and a_ray
see I think I have in common with you guys than most of the other people. At least you guys hold Obama accountable and talk about important things like stopping tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas.
But what does Obama do? He appoints Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, king of sending jobs overseas, as his economic advisor. Talk about horrible optics.
Did you guys catch the New York Times article about why Iphones are made in China? If the calculations in the story are true and building an Iphone here would only add $65 dollar to their overhead cost, they should be made here. Surely, Apple can come to some sort of arrangement to make manufacturing here more accomodating to them.
Also, I have no problem raising the capital gains tax from 15% to 25%. It seems to me that capital gains never lose money and everyone profits wildly. I think Romney's true source of embarassment is the fact that Bane Capital lobbied John Kerry to not raise the rates.
JRC,
I think we have done rather well in our conversing, a few bumps, but we both caused them and moved on without the big "tribal" explosion, my compliments sir.
Before getting to specific item cuts I would freeze all government spending increases to inflation rate for 2 if not three years as we examine where cuts may be agreed upon in social services, military, security, duplicate agencies etc. This would be against a baseline budget, not a projected budget.
In a conference all week so replies will be limitied.
Celery Eater
frank,
Like it or not, politics is the art of the possible. In a democracy, if one wishes not to be more famous as an ex-president than president (e.g. Carter), that means paying at least some attention to public opinion. Obama cannot help it that his public are predominantly scientifically illiterate ignoramuses.
As it stands now, Obama stands just a wee chance of getting re-elected. He wouldn't even have that if the Rethuglicans had not been so obliging in their canddates to oppose him. So, wrt climate change, there are two choices:
1)Obama moves forcefully on climate change, serves for 4 years and then watches his successor undo everything he has done--the first significant healthcare legislation in a generation, DADT, everything
2)He moves carefully enough that at least a few of the bubbas who don't believe in climate change stay home on election day and ekes out another 4 years. And maybe, just maybe, we get a couple of hot summers, and climate legislation becomes possible.
Like it or not Frank, we live in a democracy. The President has great power, but in the end, it's amazing how limited that power is.
@Celery Eater
I would support such a freeze. I think government agencies could be more efficient, and with such a freeze it would possibly be the incentive to create such an environment to build a foundation.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
Same old Obama apologetics. Do I need to say again that the 'Obama must avoid judicial challenges' argument sounds like complete bollocks?
"Like it or not, politics is the art of the possible."
Tell that to the people who are suffering, or even dead, thanks to Obama's various (in)decisions. Tim DeChristopher, Scott Olsen, Aaron Dale Burkeen, and many others. Can you say, straight to the face of their families, 'sorry, they had to be sacrificed, because politics is the art of the possible'?
-- frank
Frank,
Isn't outrage fun when you bear no responsibility for anything?
I look at things a bit more simply.
Does the candidate acknowledge physical reality?
Are they trying to make things better or worse?
I find that given the limited choice of candidates these days those two questions alone are sufficient to tell me which candidate I should vote for.
On the other hand, if you have a suggestion for an ideal candidate (and the possibility of actually being elected is one criterion), I would be pleased to hear it.
Until then, I'll concentrate on trying not to make things worse and if possible maybe just a little better. And you can concentrate on moral outrage and denying responsibility for the sad state of your country. On the other hand, if you'd care to join us in the reality based community, we'd welcome you.
Frank - Obama did try, and I think you and I went through this already about whether he's given a major speech about climate since his election, and then whether it was in the US, and then whether it was directed at US audiences etc.
I agree he could do (somewhat) more, but safeguarding EPA's partial approach and keep the R's from overruling state-level initiative is a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
Outrage is "fun" when you can look at Tim DeChristopher, who is actually languishing in jail, and think 'O poor Obama, who is now being victimized!'
You don't seriously see something seriously wrong with this picture?
As I said, "If you want real results on climate change, look to real action, such as carbon tariffs." In my view, the US is irreparably screwed, and barring some creative action from the Occupy Wall Street side, the only way forward on climate action is to look to initiatives in other nations. Hope that clears it up for you.
-- frank
Actually, all true cynics would say, that any vote for any Republican Party candidate from the list provided, to be President of the USA, is a vote to both bankrupt the country and literally implode it, at the same time "Soviet Union Style".
For, those who do not learn the lessons from history, they are always doomed to repeat the very same mistakes often, just like Ron Paul does every four years.
Ah, so now the Internet, will be flooded with all manner of long refuted zombie lies, fiction that claims to be debate, whack the same mole often on the head propaganda and the usual vote against your own best interests political rhetoric until November 2012, sigh!
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@anonymous
ah, I see you are already pre-empting the spending argument. I'd like to note that I voted for president Bush, I thought he did an okay job but I thought he engaged in some reckless spending.
That said, I never see or hear liberals admit that Obama is blowing out Bush's spending. The most you'll get is "oh well he had to spend so much money to fix Bush's mistakes". Is there anyone here besides celery eater who will admit to this simple fact?
Well you see actions are valid if they are performed by the right person. Bush spending = bad Obama spending = good Bush hard interrogation techniques = bad Obama send in special ops and immediately place lead in enemies head = good Bush Guantanamo open = bad Obama Guantanamo open = good Bush signing statements bad Obama signing statements good Bush recess appointments bad Obama recess (illegal) appointments = good
It is always a heads I win tails you lose with those on the left, always.
Celery Eater
Oops, you left some things off your list: Gingrich individual mandate = free market solution, Obama individual mandate = socialism.
Spare us your self-righteous rants.
Meta-summary:
My favourite candidate can beat up your favourite candidate! Bwahahahaha!
As for the fates of actual ordinary people? Bah, who cares. My candidate is more important than everything else! Bwahahahaha!
So there.
-- frank
Mark,
Agreed, except the media will not let Gingrich get away with his BS, OTOH the media lapdogs cover for Obama.
btw not a Gingrich supporter, nor is he President. I just enjoy the fond memories of all the rapid left foaming at the mouth for Bush policies and now that Obama has carried on many of those same policies, not a peep.
So you feel guilty sometimes that when you converse you are being self-rightegous? Confidence problems? You probably get very mad driving in traffic.
Celery Eater
Here is the difference. If McCain was currently President and all the economic indicators were the same as they are now, I would be calling him McLame and not voting for him in 2012, (did not vote for Bush in 2004) not a chance. Three years is plenty of time to put a country back on the right path, especially with the first two years of large majorities in Congress.
Please don't whine about the Republicans blocking blah blah blah, you are just proving that Obama is a weak leader.
Anyone who is supporting Obama's re-election should have their head examined or commit themselves to a home.
Celery Eater
Three years is plenty of time to put a country back on the right path, assuming presidents are endowed with the power to spin straw into gold (which could then be sold by Goldline). The country has been on the "wrong path" ever since "conservatives" decided that tax cuts pay for themselves, regulations "kill jobs," science is a liberal conspiracy, and comparative effectiveness research is the second coming of Hitler.
p.s. The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for 5 months.
CE,
Oh, the old tired rant about the "liberal" media. Seems to me that I've heard lots about Obama's shortcomings in the media. Indeed, that has been part of what led me to the conclusion that Obama is a pretty lame leader.
My point is that politics is a game played by idiots and that to claim that one party has a monopoly on double-standards and hypocrisy is ridiculous. Each major party will do or say whatever it takes to get power. A pox on both houses.
Mark,
You remind me of this.
"I see" said the blind man. "It all comes back to me now", as he spit into the wind.
Recent example Diane Sawyer's interview with Obama. A laugh a minute.
George Stepha"in the dems pockalus" Asked Biden "Do you thin Newt referring to President Obama as the "Food Stamp" President is racist? He let Joe run with that softball and paint the entire Republican party with that brush, next question.
You have got to be kidding me.
Celery Eater
Celery Eater
CCE,
Your ignornace of tax cuts and how much we are in debt from spending too much is noted. I have already presented data in this thread about the "myth" of reverting the most recent tax cuts will balance the budget.
I do agree that Democrat Presidents are not natural leaders, they make better bureaucrats. Nice reference to Hitler. I see your mind is far to gone to save and you want all power concentrated in the Federal Government, perhaps you want to disolve the state governments? All corporations? Just let the Fed do it all and then everything will be rosey.
Bottom line, Obama is a huge failure, has zero leadershipy qualities (inspire, vision, take responsibility) and this country will do far better without him in the White House.
Celery Eater
Reversing the "most recent tax cuts" will not balance the budget, nor will mathematically impossible spending cuts. "Balancing the budget" in 2009, 2010, and 2011 would have required the entire elmination of all discretionary spending including the military.
As the bond market proves every day, no one who knows anything cares about the immediate deficits. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield
The market is willing to pay the US government money for the honor of loaning it money.
Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in their entirety (which Obama is not proposing) would stabilize debt to GDP in the medium term. What matters is the long term deficit, and the only thing that can reign in both private and public debt is a reduction in expected healthcare spending.
Personally, I like the power granted to the federal government as described in the Constitution. You know, the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. The power to tax. The power to print and borrow money. The power to raise an army. Stuff like that, as opposed to, say, defining marriage.
With respect to Hitler, it comes from listening to Alarmist Conservatives. e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=glenn+beck+hitler&oq=glenn+beck+hitler&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=320596l325209l0l325322l17l14l0l5l5l0l216l1278l1.7.1l9l0
You cannot "balance the budget" by repealing the "most recent tax cuts" nor can you "balance the budget" by cutting spending. In order to eliminate the recent deficits by spending cuts alone, you'd have to zero out all discretionary spending (which includes the military) for 2009, 2010, and 2011.
As the bond market proves every day, no one who knows anything cares about the large short term deficits, which became a certainty the instant the full extent of the economic collapse was clear. They are willing to recieve (pay?) negative interest for the the "honor" of buying US debt.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield
If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire (and Obama is unfortunately not advocating that), debt to GDP stabilizes in the medium term. Rates go back to where they were in the 1990s, which were still far lower than those between WWII and 1980.
What everyone cares about are the deficits over the long term. These are driven by healthcare costs.
My idea of the role of the Federal government are those powers enumerated in the Constitution, such as the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, the power to tax, the power to print and borrow money, and the power to raise an army to name a few.
As far as Hitler is concerned, that comes from listending to too much Right Wing alarmism over the last few years. e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=glenn+beck+hitler&oq=glenn+beck+hitler&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=18715l21127l0l21219l17l14l0l2l1l2l266l2161l1.4.6l11l0
CE,
The media is totally incompetent.
It's telling that you can only come up with examples that imply a left-wing bias in the media. Just for grins, list two examples of media incompetence that imply a right-wing bias in the media.
I also notice that you shifted the subject subtly, a favorite tactic of yours.
Post a Comment