Wattree's picture

    Tap Dancing For The Klan

    By Wattree on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:17pm |

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

     

    TAP DANCING FOR THE KLAN
    .

    I'm not here to defend President Obama, because as I pointed out in previous articles, I have an issue or two with some of his policies myself, just like I've had with EVERY White president. But I think we owe this brother the benefit of the doubt. He's plagued with enough problems in having to deal with world affairs and our domestic crisis, while at the same time, having to fight off racist Republicans and envious, self-serving turncoats like Tavis Smiley and Cornel West. So we shouldn't add yet another problem to his plate by forcing him to have to worry about whether he has the support of his own people.
    .
    To be quit frank, I think there are only two kinds of people in this world - good people, and bad people. In addition, I believe the battle over race was a part of the last war. Those who are enlightened recognize that the current battle is over class, because the current powers that be don’t care any more about poor and middle-class White folks than they do Black people. Most White people recognize that fact. That's why Obama is president.  So while I often write about what’s in the best interest of the Black community as a whole, I rarely make race a part of my personal political calculations.
    .
    But I consider the presidency of Barack Obama a unique situation, and what we’ve been watching with respect to many Black Obama critics should be regarded as a teaching moment, because it represents a cultural dysfunction that’s been played out thousands of times over the past four hundred years. Many of us have heard stories about Black self-hatred all of our lives, but due to President Obama’s high profile we now have the opportunity, as an entire culture, to see it being played out in all of its ugliness for the very first time.
    .
    But of course, there are going to be few of Obama's critics who are going to ask, "What are you saying, that Obama should be above criticism just because he’s Black?" Of course not, and the people who pose such a ridiculous question know that’s not what I’m saying before they even ask it. But just asking such a disingenuous question should also serve as a teaching moment - it shows the extraordinary lengths that such people will go to mask their "bligotry."
    .
    Questioning President Obama’s policies is not the problem - it’s the mean-spirited way in which it’s being done. In fact, Black haters are not merely questioning Obama’s policies at all. More often than not these people are simply using policy differences as a pretext for making slanderous assertions about the president’s character as a whole - he’s a "war criminal," "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats," "a Rockefeller Republican in Blackface," and even, "He has a certain rootlessness, a deracination" [WHAT!!!?].  Notice that three out of the four slanders are racial in nature, and these quotes are from just one man - Cornel West.
    .
    None of the criticisms above were legitimate attempts to address the president’s public policies. They were racial slanders, clear and simple. That clearly demonstrates that many Black Obama-haters are not nearly as interested in addressing public policy as they are in attacking the man himself. These slanders also demonstrate that their allegation that people who object to their criticism are merely Obama cheerleaders. That’s not true - what we’re against is what we’ve always been against - racist attacks.
    .
    But even those haters who have the good sense to refrain from blatant, racist attacks often make themselves known by going over the top in their allegations regarding policy. They’ll often say things like, "Obama is a part of the machine." But since we’re not privy to the information that Obama is basing his decisions upon, nor his motives for making any given decision, any allegation being made about him being a part of any "machine" are wholly without supporting substantiation at best. Critics who suggest this are merely commenting on what things LOOK like to their jaundiced eye - or what they're trying to convince you to think they like - without having a shred of evidence to support their views. Their allegations have no more basis in fact than that of the birthers.
    .
    The reality is, being the first Black President of the United States, Obama can’t approach the nation’s problems in the same way that they were approached by his White predecessors. In many cases he has to take a circuitous approach to addressing issues in order to prevent the GOP from mischaracterizing his efforts with their very special kind of malevolent spin. Thus, the way that things may look, may not always be what they seem. So anyone who would lend comfort to the most steadfast enemies of the Black community by helping to drag this Black man through the mud is on what my good friend, Playthell Benjamin, would call, a fool’s errand. 
    .
    There were people in the Tea Party who were consistently calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer, right up until he brought Osama Bin Laden’s head home in a bag. Bush spent nearly eight years and close to a trillion dollars trying to pull that off with no success, but Obama did it with three helicopters and a handful of courageous men, without busting a sweat bubble - and he did it while America thought he was just kickin’ it.
    .
    So this brother ain’t no punk, and he’s not the kind of person we should second guess without very good cause.  So yes, I think everyone in the Black community should get behind this brother - period. If we have a comment on policy, we should voice our concern, but we should do it politely, and very respectfully. Because while Obama is, and should be, the president of ALL of America, he is also the most high profile representative of the Black community in the entire world. So to be disrespectful of him, is to be disrespectful of us; and his success, is our success. 
    .
    With regard to Cornel West, I can only say this - any Black man who tries to publicly engage in the Dozens against the first Black President of the United States cannot be regarded as a serious intellectual. He deserves very close scrutiny, because his behavior is not only disrespectful of the president, but it betrays a gross disdain for the Black community as a whole. So he can say whatever he likes about his motives, but his behavior lends comfort to the most dedicated enemies of the Black community. Thus, the issue is not even debatable - the stupidity he’s engaged in amounts to tap dancing for the Klan.
     

    .
    .


    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]

    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    To me, the real crazy has been taking Eric Holder's comments about hypothetical Kamikaze planes attacking US shipping or 911 jets targeting buildings as circumstances where the President could use deadly force to stop the attacks, and turning the response into a declaration that Holder would kill Americans on American soil. When the crazy occurs on the Right, it is the normal course of things. Senator Ted Cruz is under delusion that he got Holder to admit that using drones to kill Americans on US soil was not Constitutional. Holder never said that he thought that drone attacks on US citizens in the US was Constitutional. When the slander is taken as Gospel on the Left, it is really disheartening.

    Whack job Rand Paul becomes a cult hero for suggesting something that neither Holder or the President considered.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 11:30pm

    I agree, RM.

    It’s gotten totally ridiculous. Obama can sneeze and they’ll hold a news conference accusing him of trying to start a plague. I think the reason for that is he's not an easy target to hit legitimately, so they're forced to manufacture controversy.


    by Wattree on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 6:38pm

    The GOP House was trying to fast track the use of domestic drones. Maybe Ron Paul needs to talk to his peeps


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 2:19pm

    by forcing him to have to worry about whether he has the support of his own people.

    It would be more accurate to say " by forcing him to have to worry about whether he has the support of his own class?"

    He he has nothing to worry about in that regard.   

    Our class, made up of both black,white, red and yellow, are not fooled by the charade, of the Obama / Bernanke show. Obama/Republican  Good cop/bad cop

    Things are really going as planned.

    An Obama America where housing prices are allowed to fall through the bottom, causing millions of families to lose a fortune, as our class falls farther behind, Work long and hard for less and productivity goes up. and tell our class  of Americans wecan  do anything as long as we work as cheap as the rest of the worlds poor .


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:58pm

    Resistance,

    Whenever I hear a person claim that President Obama is a slave to the corporatist Wall Street culture, I know immediately that he’s one of three things - he’s either ignorant, blind to reality, or he’s promoting his own agenda. Of course Obama is a slave to Wall Street - we all are.

    You can’t live in this society without being a slave to Wall Street. But there are two kinds of slaves. There are slaves who are subservient and content to simply do what they’re told, and then there are slaves who engage in a constant struggle to free themselves and their people. So, while I’m not always happy with some of the day-to-day decisions that President Obama makes to promote our cause, I’m convinced that Obama is one of the latter. If he wasn’t, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to get rid of him.

    The fact is, if you’re a casual observer sitting at home and keeping score based purely on your attitudes, prejudices, and feelings, it’s easy to pass your uninformed judgment on every decision that any politician makes. But the reality is, anyone who decides to go into politics has to be practical, and a huge part of that practicality entails recognizing the fact that you’re going to have to dance to the music that’s being played, and it’s Wall Street that leads the band. So regardless to who we elect, they’re going to have to have, at the very least, a working relationship with the corporate establishment - and ironically, it’s our own fault.

    The primary reason that every politician in this country is forced to play footsey with the corporate establishment is because we, the people, are so lazy, undereducated, and disengaged from our own political well being that we allow the corporations to use money to control our minds. So the only way that a politician like Obama can even get through to us is by way of the corporate establishment.

    The reason that money has such a large influence on our political system is because it’s used to tell us what, and how, to think. From the time that most of us get up in the morning until the time we go to bed at night, we spend most of our free time with corporate voices whispering in our ear. It could be the radio, television, or even the billboards that we don’t think we’re noticing as we’re driving in to work, but the fact is, they are all having a profound subliminal effect on our thinking and attitudes. They’re conditioning us to think, and to do, what they tell us to. Corporations spend billions of dollars a year to convince wimps with severe cases of acne and horrendous body odors that if they buy a certain kind of car, the beautiful model that’s sensuously stroking its hood, or someone just like her, is going to fall in love with them - and they influence our vote in exactly the same way. Thus, every politician must remain cogizant of that fact.

    My personal favorite is the National Rent-A-Car commercial. They have a businessman walking through the air port in slow motion with dramatic music playing in the background. Then when he gets to the counter, they have the lady behind the counter making goo-goo eyes at him like she can barely restrain herself from jumping over the counter and attacking him. Then the clincher is, at the end of the commercial they have a deep, authoritative voice saying, "YOU DESERVE THIS!"

    We’ve got to start thinking of this country like it’s a business, we’re the owners, and the politicians are our employees. Only then will we begin to recognize the importance of our full engagement in running that business. Because the fact is, if the United States was a business, and as owners, we simply lounged around at home watching BET, MTV, and ESPN while allowing our employees (the politicians) to run it in the ground by giving themselves unwarranted raises in the middle of the night, and squandering away our profits, it wouldn’t be the employees’ fault, it would be ours - and that's exactly what we're doing. So don't blame it on Obama.  How can he lead people who don't have sense enough to follow? So he's simply playing the cards he's being dealt.


    by Wattree on Sun, 03/10/2013 - 5:29am

    Many turned out in record numbers, because we knew the plight we were in; it was time to throw off the yoke of slavery. We knew the difficulty ahead, we knew there would be sacrifice.

    Do you remember the pitchfork days, when we wanted the heads of these banksters on Pikes.

    Instead, when the people who turned out in record numbers, as a show of support for the first black nominee, Obama; who was given the opportunity to overturn, the deeply entrenched Wall Street Dictators, the first step in removing the bonds of slavery, he turned out to be;  do I dare say "Uncle Judas"   

    All through the primaries the ground swell of excitement, that our course was clear. "End  this slavery to Wall Street and corporatism" " We the peoples army, are ready. All hail the Great Obama"

    In fact even the Nobel committee fell for his charade.

    Obama triumphantly, rode into  DC on asses, (of those who believed in him).

    All this theater in DC, is to give the appearance, there is a significant difference

    The democrats have to feed their asses work horses  so does the Republican party.    

    Once either side is in power, the people are thrown into the pit of darkness and despair, only to have the lid lifted in time for the next election.

    It appears we are doomed, no matter the promises.

    Although for a moment, we saw the light of freedom, but the leader of this movement sold us out.

    I assume he still gets his, thirty pieces of silver though.

    Thanks a lot   O' imitator.

    What would Shakespeare say about such betrayal?


    by Resistance on Sun, 03/10/2013 - 10:32am

    Wowee, where'd you get that picture?


    by Orion on Sun, 03/10/2013 - 3:30am

    I don't know why the folks who run DAG let you run these libelous hate-filled columns over and over. But equating Cornel West with "tap dancing with the Klan" is pretty outrageous, and yet you get bupkus for blow-back from such bullshit.

    As you're either pretending or actually a bit too dim to understand, the point about "Rockefeller Republican in Blackface" is that if Obama weren't black, people might notice that his policies are roughly moderate conservative policies, not liberal. Frankly, I think that's an insult to Nelson, as he wouldn't have backed targeted drone assassinations of Americans, indefinite detention, or other attacks on the Constitution that seem quite faddish in 2013.

    You conveniently post on the day unemployment figures come out, showing overall unemployment dipping to 7.7%, Hispanic unemployment lowered to 9.6%, and black unemployment staying at 13.8%.

    Black unemployment was at 13.6% in Jan 2012 - so 14 months later it's worse. It was even 13.2% in November. For black teenagers, it went from 37.8% last month to 43.1% this month.

    But you're more worried about Cornel West, Mr. "poverty pimp" as you call him, traipsing with the Klan so to speak. Very grownup attack on your part.

    Perhaps you're worried the sequester will tarnish your bromance, since undoubtedly blacks will suffer inproportionally, since they tend more to public sector jobs. Will you be man enough to worry about black poverty if black unemployment rises up to 15%, or will that provoke another rant and rave about Cornel West?

    Sen. Levin (D-for-real) announced his retirement in 2014 so that he could fight major corporations not paying taxes - apparently not sucking up to rich donors will give him some freedom to address serious problems:

    Here are some of those issues. Years of bipartisan work by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that I chair have shed light on tax avoidance schemes that are a major drain on our treasury. The huge loss of corporate tax receipts caused by the shift of U.S. corporate tax revenue to offshore tax havens is but one example of the egregious tax loopholes that we must end. Thirty of our most profitable companies paid no taxes over a recent three year period although they had over $150 billion in profits.

    Perhaps you could encourage lame-duck Obama to do the same - rather than striking a Grand Bargain and embracing economy-shrinking austerity to deal with a false deficit crisis, he could staff the IRS and DoJ to go after corporate tax evaders and support companies and workers that actually do prime our economy.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/10/2013 - 1:46pm

    I hope you got that off you chest.  I stand firmly by every syllable that I uttered.


    by Wattree on Mon, 03/11/2013 - 8:30pm

    I'm sure you never reflect or revise. What is that saying about consistency?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 7:57pm

    Are you saying that Obama has not advocated closing corporate tax loopholes?

    Regarding sending the IRS after the corporations, doesn't the President need the Congress to change corporate tax laws before the IRS can go on the attack?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 12:47am

    Obama has advocated a lot of things. Which ones did he fight for, which ones did he reverse himself on.

    No, there are laws that simply need to be enforced.

    There's plenty of corporate theft that could be prosecuted, both from overt financial crimes surrounding the 2009 crash, as well as tax cheating. Even where banks like HSBC were caught outright laundering money for terrorists, the DoJ cut them a sweetheart fine with no criminal prosecution. With LIBOR manipulation, Barclay's paid only $360 million ($160 million via DoJ) on a scandal that cost the taxpayer billions ($3 billion to Fannie Mae/Fannie Mac, likely hundreds of billions to municipalities across the US).

    Glad Obama's leading from behind, eh?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 2:25am

    I didn't think that you were talking about tax and the IRS.

    The DOJ s going to have to make a decision that they have to prosecute bankers despite the potential expense of mounting a case. Senator Warren made that point during recent Senate hearings. The IRS can't go after corporations doing legal tax operations. The loopholes have to be closed.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 7:24am

    Senate Republicans Question Tax Division Nominee’s Experience
    Posted By Mary Jacoby On June 1, 2009 @ 8:10 pm In News | No Comments
    The nomination of Chicago lawyer Mary L. Smith to head the Tax Division hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. But it is a bit of a puzzler.
    Tax enforcement right now is hot. The Obama administration is pursuing an explosive case against Swiss bank UBS AG seeking names of 52,000 Americans who used offshore accounts to evade billions of dollars in taxes. And yet, the president has nominated someone with virtually no experience in tax law. Read her bio here [2]. After the election, Obama also put Smith in charge of the DOJ Tax Division transition efforts.
    Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama pummeled Smith, a former Clinton White House associate counsel, at her May 19 confirmation hearing. Click here [3] to read our previous report.
    Since then, Smith has submitted written responses to follow-up questions from four Judiciary members – all Republicans. No Democrat asked follow-up questions.
    It’s traditional for nominees before the Senate to answer these “questions for the record” after their initial confirmation hearings. The responses are always carefully worded and vetted by the administration.
    But given the legitimate questions Sessions raised about her experience, Smith might have used the opportunity to show more engagement with the issues. Instead, she  literally cut-and-paste responses to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that were word-for-word identical.
    ...
    She has no advanced degree in tax law.
    She has never taken any Continuing Legal Education courses in tax law.
    She has never given a speech or written an article about tax law.
    She spent only 5% of her time at Tyco on tax issues.
    She has tried only three cases to judgment, none involving tax issues.
    She never worked as a prosecutor
    She has never appeared before a jury.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Two and a Half Years, Obama Names a Tax Division Nominee
    By Mary Jacoby | September 8, 2011 3:59 pm

    President Barack Obama has nominated a tax lawyer to head the Tax Division at the
    Department of Justice, more than two years after his first nominee met jeers on Capitol Hill for her lack of tax experience.

    Fulbright & Jaworski LLP partner Kathryn Keneally is the White House’s new choice to head the division, which has been without a Senate-confirmed
    leader since Nathan J. Hochman left at the end of the George W. Bush administration.
    The New York-based Keneally has deep experience in tax law but also white collar crime, government investigations and hot legal areas like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, giving
    her the kind of background in criminal matters that is crucial to the Tax Division. Her law firm biography lists numerous publications and speeches to her credit, offering a level of engagement with the subject matter that was strikingly lacking from Obama’s first nominee, Mary Smith.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tax Division Nominee Says Past Criticism Won’t Affect Job
    By Samuel Knight | November 16, 2011 6:08 pm
    President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Tax Division
    said Wednesday that her past criticism of crackdowns on offshore accounts would
    not affect her performance at DOJ.
    Testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing Wednesday,
    Kathryn Keneally stressed her credentials and experience navigating ethical issues, said that the “IRS and Tax Division should be commended,” and that it would be “an absolute privilege to serve one’s country” as she laid out a general vision for
    running the section.
    Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, had expressed concerns that Keneally’s past criticism of tax law enforcement were inappropriate for a Tax Division Assistant
    Attorney General.
    Grassley asked how she could reconcile the subtitle of a 2007 article she co-wrote – “the War On Tax Shelters Will Give Rise to an Entrenched Enforcement Mindset” – with the responsibilities of her position and the fact that “me and others believe just
    the opposite.”
    ...

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tax Division Farms Out Lawyers, Raising Questions About Focus
    By Mary Jacoby | March 27, 2012 2:48 pm

    About a third of the Justice Department’s criminal tax lawyers have been assigned
    recently to temporary details with U.S. Attorney offices around the country, depleting the ranks of Tax Division prosecutors while major enforcement initiatives remain on the agenda.
    The Justice Department would not confirm how many criminal tax lawyers have been temporarily re-assigned from Washington to local prosecuting offices. At a March 20
    Senate Finance subcommittee hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said that 33
    lawyers from the Tax Division’s criminal ranks had applied to work in the U.S.
    Attorney offices. A knowledgeable person said around 30 had accepted the details.
    It’s also unclear how many criminal tax lawyers the division employs. The Justice Department set the number at “over 100″ in response to questions from Main Justice, while other knowledgeable people said there were slightly under 100.
    Whatever the numbers, the division is experiencing a large outflow of talent in 2012, knowledgeable people say.
    “Do you think it’s wise to divert a significant portion of the criminal component of the Tax Division to deal with non-tax issues?”

    ...

    The Tax Division in recent years has helped force an historic opening of Switzerland’s bank secrecy protections in its pursuit of U.S. taxpayers who have been hiding assets in secret overseas accounts. In 2009, Swiss bank UBS entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. and agreed to pay $780 million after admitting it had helped U.S. residents evade taxes. That enforcement action is ongoing.
    The Tax Division has also cracked down on rogue tax preparers in recent years who file fraudulent returns, mostly on behalf of middle income taxpayers.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 1:19pm

    Does Ms Jacoby note the $1 billion dollar award the Tax Division-got against Dow in February? 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 2:40pm

    Does Mr. RMRD note the 2005 date when the IRS denied the R&D deductions and Dow Chemical sued?

    Does Mr. Obama always get credit for actions taken 4 years before his presidency?

    (i.e. the Dow case is simply a continuation of the IRS defense from the Bush years)


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 3:21pm

    So the DOJ did no work on the case since 2005?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 4:00pm

    Sure, after discovering the fraud & disallowing the claims, Bush's DoJ worked on the defense 2005-2009, while Obama's DoJ worked on it 2009-2013.

    So is this your best or only example of Obama pursuing tax fraud?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 4:08pm

    Legal cases against corporations take years because corporations have the legal a abilty to may sure there are delays in going to trial

    You are not going to see criminal or tax case against a large corporation that is not years in the making. 

    Do you have evidence of corporate trials that were short in duration?

    You seem to be in an Argumentative mood. I agree with Elizabeth Warren that there should be more corporations taken to trial despite the expense and length of the case. You appear to want to rant against Obama and name call. Have at it.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 4:18pm

    Simply, Bush brought this case against Dow Chemical in 2005.

    Show me a tax case Obama's DoJ brought if you're going to call it an example, no?

    Is that "argumentative"?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 5:05pm

    Come off your high horse. You complain about Wattree yet here you are with another one of your "Obummer" posts. You complain about Wattree literary license yet here you are using yours against Obama.

    We heard from the usual suspects that Obama was a disappointment and we should sit out the 2010 election to punish Obama and the Democrats. 2010 helped usher in the Tea Party crazies.We wind up with GOP redistricting gaining an edge that only massive Democratic voting can overcome. Dennis Kucinich was forced to run against fellow Democrat Marcy Kaptur in Ohio. Not a great scenario

    We were told that Obummer's Supreme Court nominees Kagan and Sotomayor did not pass Progressive muser. Yet they have been on the correct side of many 5-4 decisions. Sotomayor and Kagan look pretty good so far.

    We were told Obama could not possibly recover from his poor first debate performance despite the fact that most modern Presidents flopped in their firsr re-election campaign debates. Obama recovered

    We were told Obummer would cave to prevent the Sequester. That did not happen

    We were told that Obummer and Holder were planning to kill US citizen's in San Francisco. We were told to shpw respect for the wingnut who made the nitwit charge.

    We are told that Obummer would be criticized if only he weren't black. Yet we see questions about not closing Gitmo, drone strikes, and offering up chained CPI. Ed Schultz openly challenges Obama on chained CPI. Rachel Maddow openly challenges the secrecy of the drone program.. Amy Goodwin makes the same drone objections in print. That black skin has really been protective.

    Of course the Right has joined in in glee. Obama has had to show his long form birth certificate. He is called "lazy" every day by the wingnuts.He is told to speak out on "black" issues and when he talks about the stupid arrest of Prof Gates or the fact that someone like Trayvon Martin could have been his son, he is criticized. That black suit of armor is not very protective.

    OBummer gets criticism for the lack of more blacks in the Cabinet. Obummer is told by some on the Left to be more Gangsta. He is then criticized when he does not speak out more about Hadiya Pendleton's death, when the high-achieving teen is killed by an Original Gangsta.

    Melissa Harris-Perry criticizes Obummer for attacking single mothers after the President wished that he had been able to have a more stable relationship with his own father.

    Meet the Press' David Gregory openly says that the Washington press Corps does not like Obama's WH that much. Thus we get empty-suit Paul Ryan as a serious man on the issue of the budget.

    We no longer pay much attention to the Obummerbots.

    As for what the Holder DOJ is doing, the department is going at a core problem, credit rating agencies that are full of crap.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/13/2013 - 10:18pm

    Getting nervous, eh?

    I don't care about the little stupid stuff, especially not the personal issues.

    I care about gross violations of the Constitution, deaths, repression, crashed economy, theft, rampant illegality.

    Sorry lack of tax enforcement has you bummed.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 2:43pm

     

    Your response is so diappointing but predictable. You have become trapped in a bubble constructed from a misguided sense of self-importance. Getting the call wrong on Supreme Court nominees, not worrying about the validity of credit rating organizations, sleeping during elections all unimportant to you. You have done an excellent job of proving my point about Obummerbots.
     
    For those who consider Rand Paul's stance on drones heroic and are willing to overlook his overall political garbage as background noise, Louis Faarrakhan should be included as a hero as well. Minister Farrakhan is not a fan of drones either. 
    You are delusional. Enjoy your camping trip with Occupy Wall Street. I really appreciate the humor you provided today. Thanks.
     
    Stewart wants you to give him the bubble back. He needs it for tonight's show cool

    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 3:50pm

    I forgot that you may not realize how much corporate maneuvering is actually legal. That is why some mega-Corps can pay low taxes or receive refunds. Corporations can even make money by shipping jobs overseas. That is why loophole closing is important. 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 4:05pm

    You often seem to forget that Mr. Obama is entrusted with executing & enforcing laws and can even propose new laws if existing ones are inadequate.

    I didn't get Supreme Court nominees wrong, & no idea what your comment about credit ratings means. I didn't "sleep" through the vote - my vote is largely irrelevant in Washington DC in case you just woke up. But your vote & whatever community work you do makes you a superhero - let's talk about "self-importance". I don't consider Rand Paul or Farrakhan "heroic", but I'm happy for anyone to oppose ridiculous use of drones to erode our right to privacy. Glad you find humor in Occupy Wall Street - really, why not just join Fox in bitching about smelly hippies peeing on the lawn? Banks deserved black people's money & homes, right? No need to protest theft. Poverty's so passé these days, it's only pimps who discuss.

    Yep, you look mighty fine in that Obummer cape and tights.

    PS - for extra points, you can go here & defend Lanny Breuer's lack of criminal prosecutions.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 5:21pm

    Now I'm finding humor in you. Blah , blah..........Occupy Wall Street. Blah, blah .... Fox. Blah, blah .........hippies.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 9:53pm

    Hi Eric,

    I can agree with much of what you say. I've thought the same myself. But at times, I fear you veer off the road into soothsaying. For example, here: What IS this "circuitous approach" you allude to? Strikes as a bit of mind-reading:

    The reality is, being the first Black President of the United States, Obama can’t approach the nation’s problems in the same way that they were approached by his White predecessors. In many cases he has to take a circuitous approach to addressing issues in order to prevent the GOP from mis-characterizing his efforts with their very special kind of malevolent spin.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 10:49pm

    But even those haters who have the good sense to refrain from blatant, racist attacks often make themselves known by going over the top in their allegations regarding policy.

    A lot of political discourse is over-the-top and, really, it always has been.

    But this reminds me a bit of what supporters of Israel (me, for example) have said about critics of Israel: "Of course it's legitimate to criticize Israel--just not in that way." And, indeed, I've heard hatred in the way many of these criticisms have been couched. However...

    It also occurs to me that these same people seldom--sometimes, but seldom--get around to expounding these legitimate criticisms. If it's legitimate to criticize Israel, then let's have at it. Perhaps they feel themselves too embattled fighting off the haters to bring up criticisms themselves, fearing that they will only add fuel to the fire they're trying to put out. And the criticisms they do bring up are muted and inconsequential.

    I can sympathize with that fear. Political passions and discourse almost never pause for fine and important distinctions. The hater will take any criticism of its hated object as validation of his own position. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    I guess I can also see why a black person would be reluctant to give a full-throated critique of the first black president, given the history of this country. Heck, plenty of white folks have been shielded by their color when they've done bad things-- why can't we cut this guy some slack. And, as you say, it's not as though Obama has a shortage of problems, many intractable, and is ducking bullets from almost every angle.

    But getting back to the nature of political discourse--much of it anyway. I'm tired of the constant bickering on these threads. I've engaged in it plenty here and elsewhere, but I'm tired of it. It boils over the edge of disagreement into the nastiness of disrespect. Disrespect for the other person's intelligence, experience, and values. If you really disrespect the person that much why are you engaging with "him"? What's the point? If you think he's so dimwitted or disingenuous that he can't (or won't) accept reason and evidence, then why keep pummeling him? Say your bit; present your evidence; walk away.

    That's my view anyway...

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 11:13pm

    I expect that I'm one of the bickerers that you are talking about. I respect your point of view. However, I disagree with the black people not criticizing Obama because he is black viewpoint. If you recall, black voters remained supportive of Bill Clinton when he was being impeached. The defense came because most black voters did not see Republicans gaining power as a good outcome.

    The Republican party has taken a quantum leap towards being more crazy and racist. Virtually everyday we have examples of what Republicans think about blacks and other minorities. Just today, the Republican Governor of Michigan has appointed a "Special Master" for blacks and other citizens in Detroit. A South Carolina State Senator who is a physician openly said that Republicans will vote against expanding health care coverage because it is good politically to vote against a program set up by the black guy in the White House.

    The messenger does matter. Rand Paul does have baggage that would not go unnoticed in the black community thus his being rejected as a valid critic is not unexpected. I did ask if there would be a similar degree od hero worship for comments about drones if Louis Farrakhan was the messenger.

    During the filibuster, Sen Ron Wyden appeared briefly to say that Obama had to place the drone program had to be under Congressional review. Wyden was correct. Rand Paul, on the other hand, was talking about Obama killing San Franciscans in Starbucks. There is a vast difference in the argument. Yes, the frame of the discussion did matter.

    As long as there is a Republican threat, there will be strong support for Democrats black, white, brown and polka-dot.

    Thanks for listening.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 12:01am

    TL;DR version: he didn't say the magic word "kumquat" and didn't have a red handkerchief in his left pocket, therefore disqualified.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 2:52am

    I agree on the substance. Especially the below. Just because a clock tells the correct time twice a day is no reason to buy it. I would say that the best response is not to let a good message be co-opted by a crazy messenger like Paul.

    Wyden was correct. Rand Paul, on the other hand, was talking about Obama killing San Franciscans in Starbucks. There is a vast difference in the argument. Yes, the frame of the discussion did matter.

    As to the bickering, I have no problem with arguments over substance. One reason these things get "warm" and turn ad hominem, IMO, is that one side (or both) simply repeat their positions without addressing the other's arguments, their credits and demerits.

    But after you've spent an hour showing the other person why it's light out because the sun is shining...and the other side simply says "no it's not"...or takes any number of other (to you) ridiculous exits...then I, personally, think it's time to walk away.

    I've become more interested in finding out why someone thinks XYZ in his own terms...instead of becoming outraged...as I used to become...that he thinks something so "stupid" as XYZ. Sometimes, it offers a way through impasses and gives people room to stand down from defending ridiculous positions. Or, it gives you insight into the legitimacy, however partial, of that person's point of view. Or it gives you a fuller understanding of why you think it's a false position (simply because you've given it every chance to present its merits).

    Just one man's POV here...we're all treading our own path..


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 10:43am

    If you only have 1 horse in the stable, that's the one you tend to ride.

    None of the "grown-ups" would toss a stick in the spokes of our growing drone & surveillance state, so it was left to a tea party crazy like Rand Paul to do it.

    Would I rather an Al Franken or Alan Grayson or even Harry Reid himself do it? You betcha. But none of these did. (Harry even passed on the chance to change the rules on the filibuster - trusting the Republicans to suddenly play nice, for some unexplained reason)

    I think Brennan should have been blocked because of his continued ability to lie to Congress & others about his drone program, and his supposed see-no-evil/hear-no-evil naïvité on CIA torture. But that's not what Rand Paul did.

    Yeah, I prefer to have a single malt whiskey, but sometimes having Jane Hamsher mix with Gordon Norquist presents the best publicity, or when Bob Barr teams with the ACLU on privacy issues the effort gets furthered.

    When Ron Paul was the only candidate to speak against the war on drugs, or excessive black incarceration, or continuing wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Yep, I applauded, even if I think he's wacko on the gold exchange. Because that gold exchange thing will never affect any of us, unlike theft from the Federal Reserve amounting to trillions of dollars.

    Come to think of it, all the high-level Democrats ran for the hills when Republicans were attacking ACORN for ludicrous James O'Keefe-invented reasons. So I've no idea where we get our untarnished defenders of what's right, say of the Constitution. Sesame Street?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 1:36pm

    You see hope in making a Faustian deal with the GOP. I see Paul as pure theater.Paul is just another guy willing to take away my Constitutional voting rights. Paul is willing to take away a woman's right to choose.He is just another wingnut. I'm tired of hearing how only you are defending the Constitution.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 5:25pm

    If the Dems had the courage and morality to do it themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    But no, I'm not the only one who likes or defends the Constitution (and I never said that nor implied it) - it's fairly common on progressive blogs and organizations like the ACLU. Why you keep trying to label me an egomaniac, don't know, but I guess it's just part of your schtick, smear who you're arguing with any way you can. Pretty pathetic - anyone who has any issues with the government is tap dancing with the klan or making a Faustian deal with the enemy. Hey, I killed Christ too, and hung around St. Petersburg when I saw it was time for a change.

    BTW, today Charles Krauthammer is crowing about the national Dem-GOP consensus on waging the war on terror. Talk about a Faustian deal with the enemy.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 6:17pm

    For many of us Rand Paul raises red flags as far as his interpretation of the Constitution. Ron Wyden is a rational option. The ACLU is a rational option, and rather than performing political theater, is advancing a case through the courts to open up the records on the use of drones.

    The charge that Holder said that the President was open to attacking US citizens on US soil was idiotic and Rand Paul, the comedian making the charge, cannot be supported.The fact that the concept got traction on the Left is disheartening. if Paul is involved, it's a deal breaker. The ACLU is a more reasonable gladiator.

    There was absolutely nothing gained by the Rand Paul filibuster. The real wok was already underway. It's hard to argue about a Democratic-Republican marriage on an issue as wackjob Krauthammer alleges, when a consensus with Rand Paul is praised


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 7:41pm

    I see your point.

    However, I look at the whole picture being presented, not just specific issues.

    Ron Paul repeatedly said that you couldn't take one or two of his positions in isolation. The whole structure of positions fit together as one piece and supported each other.

    So yes, I can applaud the Pauls' positions on various points--whatever applauding means--but I can't support them politically, e.g., money, time, votes. I can't support them. Moreover, Paul did what he did in political isolation--there was no price to pay for his "courage."

    I believe it was MLK who said that the truth in the mouths of liars is a lie. So yes, I can applaud a Paul for telling the truth on XYZ, but I can't support him, because supporting him means, necessarily, all those other things I don't support.

    This is true, to some extent, of all candidates: You don't get to customize them to suit your every taste. But the overall Paul picture about the role of the federal government is too big a stumbling block for me.

    Even if Wyden's words were occasioned by Paul getting up there, I like Wyden, and I don't like Paul.


    by Anonymous Peter... (not verified) on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 7:05pm

    I agree with you. Drones need to be discussed openly. Whether Americans who are fighting with an enemy overseas can be targets should be openly discussed. I'll go with Wyden and the ACLU.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 7:44pm

    "I believe it was MLK who said that the truth in the mouths of liars is a lie." - Hard to believe - everything I've read from MLK was pretty crystal clear and not filled with linguistic cuteness.

    "Ron Paul repeatedly said that you couldn't take one or two of his positions in isolation. The whole structure of positions fit together as one piece and supported each other."- Perhaps he said that, but if you read 1 or 2 things about him, you know that's bullshit - he repeatedly signed on with Democrats to work on specific issues, say here with Barney Frank to work on medical marijuana. Think Ron Paul expected Congressman Frank bought into his whole libertarian philosophy?

    "So yes, I can applaud the Pauls' positions on various points--whatever applauding means--but I can't support them politically, e.g., money, time, votes. I can't support them." Of course not. But you can support Obama politically when he pushes drone expansion to 5 countries, payout to Wall Street, no prosecutions for Wall Street, putting cuts to Social Security on the table (eg with CPI), does federal raids on medical marijuana, yadda yadda.

    'Moreover, Paul did what he did in political isolation--there was no price to pay for his "courage."' - as opposed to politicians who don't speak up at all, or do what they do for obvious political gain. Really, you're going to use this excuse? Railing against black incarceration didn't harm his potential base? Telling Republicans to bring the troops home? He ran a presidential race based on saying stuff must other candidates wouldn't say. He expressed sympathy for Occupy Wall Street. Obama told Democrat progressives to stop whining.

    "So yes, I can applaud a Paul for telling the truth on XYZ, but I can't support him, because supporting him means, necessarily, all those other things I don't support." Yea, good luck on that war in Afghanistan and not closing Gitmo and targeted or signature drone strikes & denying congressional review & what evuh. I'm sure there's a principled stand hiding in there somewhere.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 9:19pm

    Supporting Rand Paul accomplishes none of your intended goals. The ACLU is actually doing something.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 9:44pm

    The Rand Paul praise brings back bitter memories of the Jane Hamsher-Tea Party attack on the Affordable Care Act. It was an abomination. Progressives do not have to form coalitions with wingnuts..

    Do we have any recent examples where these Progressive-Tea Party coalitions actually worked, or have they just gained talking points for the Right?

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 11:32pm

    Depends on definition of "actually worked".

    Slowed down atrocities, publicized the alternatives, prepared things for later success?

    Alan Grayson got re-elected even though he got knocked out for a term. Elizabeth Warren made it to the Senate. Marijuana is now legal in a couple states and legalization support has a majority in a number of others. But 2 years ago you could say all these areas were failures if you just looked at "crossed end zone or not".

    Affordable Care Act didn't much save money, which is why we're back attacking Medicare. If we pay twice as much per capita as other countries, why do we need extra funding for ACA rather than figure out who's stealing that 50%?

    About 80% of Obama's grand bargains to date have been cuts to services even while we run record deficits. Who gets all this money? When do we tax the rich?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 3:15am

      We have raised taxes on the rich, in the New Year's deal to avert the cliff. Getting Republicans to agree to that was a considerable accomplishment. Obama's cuts may not be in things that are essential, and his savings in health care don't involve cutting people's benefits(except for the thing about not paying for bad loans).

      The Big O didn't want the automatic spending cuts, so I wouldn't include them in "Obama's cuts". Obama is the defender of the anti-poverty programs that the Republicans are so eager to gut.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 9:01am

      Oops, forgot the link.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-pr...


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 9:02am

    Digby does her bit on health care costs


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 5:54pm

    How are Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren tied to Progressives working with the Tea Party? Aren't they real live examples of providing alternatives to the Tea Party? Why would you crdit a Progressive-Tea Party coalition for their victories?


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 9:52am

    Please re-read what I wrote.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 9:59am

    I asked what coalition between Progressives  and Tea Party people actually worked

    You suggested that things had been slowed by these coalitions then said Grayson got re-elected and Warren was elected. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 1:22pm

    I'm not too subtly saying you could accuse Occupation Wall Street of being a failure when to protest nothing would be more a failure. Grayson's loss was a failure but he came back. Same with Warren. Same with other issues. Sometimes success takes multiple bouts of failure with some balls to stick it out, rather than going for easy insignificant wins or Pyrrhic victories.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 2:39pm

    It is very subtle. The issue was Progressive-Tea Party coalitions. Using the criteria you are suggesting any victory in the future could be tied to Occupy Wall Street or a Progressive-Tea Party coalition even if neither group actually deserves any credit.

    The voters had a choice between Grayson and  Tea Partyer and Warren and Scott Brown. There were clear choices. The voters regretted their ouster of Grayson and saw that Brown was ready to go full "Whoo Whoo Indian on Warren. 

    If you are talking about things taking time, giving Rand Paul the ability to say that he had Progressive support and works across the aisle would something he could use to set things back if he gained more power.

    Not seeing how the Progressive-Tea Party connection works here.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 5:30pm

    Obama's worked across the aisle with Republicans directly opposed to everything you hold dear, but you don't have a problem with Obama, even in some cases locking Democrats out of access, but you have only praise for Obama.

    I thought treating Ryan as an adult in the room would come back to bite him in the ass, and I think it's happening now. Ryan's much more dangerous than Rand Paul - Ryan's completely hypocrital, and his incessant raving about tax cuts & decreased spending (unless in his district) will make it into our budget planning.

    Rand Paul's filibuster brought public questioning to the drone program. Still grateful he did it. Don't know what happened to the liberal pro-privacy Democrats.

    And in answer to Aaron, no, I don't think use of drones as inherently bad, but the way we're using them - as an undeclared surveillance tool and weapon of instant war across other countries is bad and against international law. Instead of taming this awful tiger, we want to bring it to America? "Oh, we'll be good this time, we won't abuse it"... right, look at how we've waged the drug war, with what great success.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:21am

      If international law prohibits us from going after Al Qaeda in countries where they have bases, there may be a deficiency in international law. My own problem with the drones is that there have been war crimes(the attacks on funerals and on people who come to help the wounded are especially savage), and that there hasn't been any Congressional oversight--Obama is claiming too much authority when it comes to killing.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 8:25am

    Life has "deficiencies". The Soviet Union was a vicious state internally & externally, but international law didn't allow us to launch an unprovoked attack on Moscow. Why our hair goes on fire from the much less dangerous Al Qaeda?

    We claimed Saddam Hussein was giving safe harbor to Al Qaeda, which was absolute bullshit. Ties between Al Qaeda & Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula have been much less than crowed about, and partially used to counteract the Arab Spring, partly used by Saudis to secretly designate Yemeni assassinations for us, and partially used by the US to wage its secret war that started before AQAP supposedly even existed.

    Pakistan just completed its first democratic transition between Parliaments, and claims it opposes US drone strikes, but we unilaterally insist we can continue to kill people - sometimes linked to AQ, sometimes civilians killed as "collateral damage", sometimes just mistakes. This is legal? As long as we say Al Qaeda has a base somewhere (now Pakistan, Mali, Algeria, Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea...) we can just fly unmanned drones in and fire missiles? What happens if there's an Al Qaeda cell in Paris or London? We couldn't even find an Al Qaeda cell in Florida that trained pilots for a hijacking & attack - and then we actively let Saudis fly out of the US instead of interrogating them - a complicity we complain about Pakistan for. For our incompetence & duplicity, should Mexico or Britain have been allowed to send drones across the border & fire into Venice, Fla?

    In fact, we've occupied Afghanistan for 12 years, but haven't been able to weed out whoever we think is our threat there to let us go home. Isn't this just open-ended bullshit rather than an action that complies with international agreements? Russia used supposed actions against them to launch attacks on Georgia. Are we accepting these as legal, that any big power has the right to unilaterally violate sovereignty as long as they claim there are a few terrorist insurgents residing in that country?

    Note, Al Awlaqi was never charged, and the US keeps changing its story on when he was actually targeted (search EmptyWheel). We have less credibility now than most of the countries we complain about, sadly. And by Obama's policy, we've lost all transparency - he refuses even to acknowledge we have a drone program, much less have a Congressional review of where this program operates and what are the limits. At what point does that kind of program equate a terrorist program? Is it okay because we think we trust Obama? What happens if Paul Ryan becomes president, or a Michelle Bachmann? Why should the rest of the world agree & submit to our fucked up internal crazy politics?


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 12:15pm

      Obama hasn't closed Gitmo because Congress won't let him. I think his concern for the poor, and his decision not to go into Iran, Syria, or Mali is fairly principled. Can you give a link on the Social Security business; I haven't heard it. Some of the drone attacks have been war crimes, but drones aren't inherently more immoral than any other weapons.

    Did Paul really express sympathy for Occupy Wall Street? He is for a completely unfettered free market; based on an Ayn Randian don't-worry-about-anyone-but-yourself ethos.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 8:48am

       Well, he did say some positive things about Occupy Wall Street, but he qualified it by saying that the rich are fine as long as they don't get help from the government. I doubt the Occupiers hold that view.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 12:10pm

    Some Occupiers are social anarchists, some are simply liberals frustrated with inside government theft and lack of prosecution. The 1% vs. 99% was more about how the 1% was stacking the deck and stealing, not that the 1% had more money. Of course there's no total agreement on this. But the meltdown in 2008 wasn't caused by Target or IBM making money from a service - it was caused by financial institutions offering valueless toxic assets as a con, stealing people's mortgages, manipulating interest rates and other malfeasance, doing backroom and revolving door deals, that still hasn't been adequately punished.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 2:47pm

    I'll let Greenwald speak on Gitmo, but basically Obama doesn't have to deny access to counsel and habeas corpus, or continue abusive treatment that covered up the killing of a Gitmo inmate recently or punish Gitmo whistleblowers or deepen the use of more questionable Bagram and say recent (torture?) renditions via Jordan... Actually Marcy has a good summary of Gitmo here.

    Obama has vowed to cut Social Security since at least 2009. and every negotiation of a grand bargain hes still intent. Here's a note on Obama's "please don't throw me in that sequester briar patch". What was result of fiscal cliff deal? Capital gains on the rich stayed at 20% rather than 36% or 39%; only amounts over $450K are taxed at higher rate (while rich also get extended tax cuts on first $450K). Originally we needed $1.6 trillion in revenue but we settled for $1 trillion less. The Republican offer started at $800 billion, but we settled for $600 billion - nice negotiation. And it pushed us into the sequester, which means across the board cuts to social programs (plus some to super bloated $800+ billion per year defense spending - aw, cry me a river). If we'd just let the Bush tax cuts expire, we'd be in better shape.

    But think of that - the extra revenues over 10 years might fund 3/4 of the DoD budget for 1 year. Meanwhile 75% of our misguided austerity measures over the last 3 years have been benefits cuts, and those have been primarily social programs because defense is sacrosanct. (That's what Obama didn't like about Simpson-Bowles: cut defense too much). In the end, the poor will see Social Security cut via CPI because Obama thinks the poor should share the pain as the rich see estate tax pushed back up to 40% (with the $5 million estate exemption made permanent). Yep, old poor people should see their income cut by 1.5% while rich people see their income cut by 0.6%, as Dean Baker calculates. (based on Bush taxcut figures, not vs. expired tax cuts) As Social Security provides over half income for most retirees, I wonder if the CPI takes adequate account of the rise in the price of cat food, for those not fortunate enough to be 70-year-old WalMart greeters.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 3:22pm

      The America Blog account is pretty tendentious. They jeer at the part that should reassure them--that part of the savings are going back to the poor. They acknowledge that some people(how many?) don't think the alternative CPI will cost people what they need, but they loftily declare this to be false, without naming their sources.

      The budget numbers from my source don't have cuts in Social Security or aid to the poor.

      Greenwald provided some useful information(I'll employ more nuance in the future when using the "Congress won't let him" excuse), but the MOU he cites doesn't deny people counsel or habeas corpus, and it doesn't say some other things he claims it does. It  does allow lawyers to share information with other counsel if they are working for the same client, and it doesn't make all attorney-client contacts subject to the whim of the base commander(the base commander can deny them access if they violate the provisions of the MOU). That doesn't mean Obama has a good human rights record, besides the prolonged detention statement the NYT cites, he signed the cursed National Defense Authorization Act.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 4:57pm

    Frankly didn't have time or energy to re a cut.search better articles, sorry, so don't want to defend all of this.

    The move to CPI decreases Social Security payouts without calling it such.

    Re: Gitmo, EmptyWheel has stories going back some time on denying detainees rights, there's been pretty obvious surveillance of client-attorney discussions, there's been restrictions on attorneys even getting access to their client statements, the security apparatus even censored a judge's in-court statements without his knowledge back in December, limited on what of their info they can share between clients. And even when a judge orders prisoners released, they're not released, so what's the point of fighting their case?


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:48am

     People have been released from Gitmo. There are plenty of human rights violations at Gitmo, but Greenwald's account of what the MOU does wasn't accurate. Greenwald does acknowledge that Congress hasn't let Obama close Gitmo. His view that closing Gitmo wouldn't change anything for any of the inmates is speculative, although we know Obama is for detention without trial(albeit only for people arrested outside the United States).

     

      The America Blog says a new index for cost of living increases will deprive people of needed benefits, but they offered little to support their assertions.References to "experts" that don't include the names of the experts or any citation make me suspicious, so I'm suspending judgment  for the time being. Obama and the Democrats are the defenders of the aid to the poor that Republicans want to destroy.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 5:10pm

    There are 160 inmates in Gitmo, currently it seems most are on a hunger strike. So some have been released, most haven't. So I guess it's alright.

    Re: social security, look up "Dean Baker Chained CPI".

    But yeah, all the GOP's fault. Made us do it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 5:28pm

      Come on, dude, "it's alright" is not even close to what I said. Not much of a rebuttal, IMHO.

      The Simpson-Bowles plan has provisions to prevent the problems that could arise from using chained CPI.

    http://www.enacttheplan.org/national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-an...

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3690


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 7:58pm

      And yes, the House did reject the Simpson-Bowles plan last year, but Obama endorsed the essence of the plan, so it might make a comeback as talks go on.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 8:51pm

    • Retirement age will increase based on longevity statistics
      • In 2075, estimated retirement age will be 69
    • Ensure the minimum benefit is 25% higher than the poverty line
    • Use "chained CPI" instead of standard CPI to measure Social Security cost of living adjustments
    • Increase benefits to individuals older than 85
    • Achieve a net-reduction in benefit payments by (1) increasing benefits for low-income beneficiaries and (2) decrease benefits for higher-income people

    Retirement age is already 67, but for poor people, health at that age is distinctly worse. Raising the retirement age only exacerbates that issue. (ok, I would expect some medical improvements in the next 62 years, and using a figure that far out seems more a budgeting trick)

    Much of the issue here with CPI juggling then is switching social security from an insurance to an "entitlement"- which it is not - by switching to different payout rates.

    But the CPI switch, increase in medicare premiums & already raised retirement age are cuts. How much they give back remains to be seen, but there attitude is they're solving our budget problem (not Social Security's fault), so they'll give back a little bit on the low end, while using their usual dismal idea of how much old people should live on, how much fun they're allowed to have.

    Distinctly chincier than Europe. More from CBPP: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3402

    [as senior benefits will then be based on income, it's going to be great fun when seniors who have trouble doing their tax find their benefits cut for some mistake or non-reporting, and have to go argue with the IRS. The program we have now is very simple, and it works.]


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 3:07am

      Okay, but you mentioned the things that would cushion the blow, like the increase in payments to people in their mid-eighties, which is when the cuts(the more substantial cuts, that is) would kick in.

     I'm surprised that I argue  with Peracles so much, when we're both on the left. I guess I'm on the "Obama has much that is good in him" left.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 7:11am

    Yeah, I think we basically agree, I'm just concerned these ameliorating measures you mention will get bargained away as part of some Nixon Goes to China grand deal, and we'll be left with just the benefits cut & later retirement.

    Since Social Security won't be in crisis for decades and isn't even an issue as far as the budget goes, I don't see why we're even negotiating.

    The problem with our budget isn't Social Security - it's health costs, defense spending and we stopped making rich people & corporations pay reasonable taxes. Medicare spending is an issue, even though Medicare spending isn't rising as fast as once projected.

    I was against the Social Security holiday, because it makes it seem as if Social Security is a government benefit, an "entitlement", not a paid insurance program off of employment payments with prescribed benefits. The GOP has partly lassoed a "getting Social Security = living off the government" meme. Pretty awful.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 7:31am

    • On the MLK quote, it's a key ingredient in demagoguery. You say true things, but for nefarious purposes. It is trickery, but it wasn't linguistic cuteness on MLK's part.

    • On congressmen doing deals to get things done. I applaud that, but it isn't what I'm talking about. Paul has said to his followers that his program will take time to implement. Bit by bit. That's fine, and it might be taken off course over time.

    But looking at it now, he believes, on constitutional grounds, in the dismantling of government--the welfare and regulatory state--as we know it. Both the overreaching parts and the good parts. I'm not for that. So even if he does good things here and there--which I can applaud--I can't support him and I can't support the political philosophy that guides his actions in a broad way. And I'm not sure that being right on XYZ recommends his broader program.

    • You raise a good question about his base. I think he probably has two--his congressional district and the people attracted to his presidential campaigns.

    I can't speak to the former and would only be guessing. But as for his presidential base, no, I don't think any of those positions hurt him with his base. However, I suspect if Paul ever gained a position where he could begin to implement his program, he might pay more of a price. But not at this embryonic stage.

    • Whether you want to call Obama's actions principled, it's hard to deny that he's paid a huge political price at all points on the political compass for almost everything he's done. I can't see where Paul's paid any price. He's run in the Libertarian Party; he's run in the Republican Party twice. He always seems to be on the debate podium. Every year, his district re-elects him, and I haven't heard that he's ever faced a tough challenger in his district. Maybe he has, but I haven't heard about it.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 4:16pm

      Although nobody asked me(I've never let that stop me before), I agree that the good things about Paul--anti-militarism, desire to legalize drugs etc.-- are far outweighed by the horrible things--abolishing the entire social welfare state, abolishing minimum wage, student loans, laws against racial discrimination, ending all foreign aid, pulling out of the United Nations, and so forth. He is a monster.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 5:02pm

    The simple truth is the Progressive ideas are gaining ground. States are legalizing marijuana. Maryland voted in same sex marriage and is abolishing the death penalty. Paul would not obstruct states rights effort to suppress votes. He would be supportive of destroying Unions. Do we think he would stand in the way of vaginal probes?

    wars are winding down without Paul. Rand Paul is not the solution to any problem.

    Progressives have the power to generate their own grass roots efforts to attain their goals. In the last election, the money spent should have guaranteed that black and Latinos would be driven from the voting booths. People power got the voters out in droves

    Screw Rand Paul 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 5:42pm

    Voter suppression is the key plank to Republican victory. Rand Paul would gleefully benefit from the Republican assault on the one man one vote ideal of the Constitution 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 5:44pm

    I think we agree on the basic points, Aaron, but I'm not sure I could call him a "monster."

    We'd have to wait until he got his hands on real power and see what it he did with it before I'd go that route.

    Mostly--and this is just a guess--I think he's in the grip of a political philosophy that has led him to take certain stands, e.g., on student laws, anti-discrimination laws.

    He does seem to have emerged from the racist fringe right. And it may be that his more refined libertarian views allow him to hold on to this underbelly while talking about much more lofty ideals that a wider audience can latch onto. Dunno.

    I think he's discovered that it's more fun being a rock star than hanging out on the fringe.

    What gives me pause is that he doesn't seem to have had a come to Jesus moment where he reflected on his past, rejected it, and moved to a better place and a deeper, more moral understanding. He wants to move on, but it's a little bloodless.

    It's almost as if he's saying, "Well, if we'd only stayed on the gold standard and left people alone, none of these problems with blacks, etc., would've cropped up in the first place." Get the fundamentals right, and everything else falls into line.

    Could be true, I suppose...


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 5:48pm

    Thanks for thoughtful answers.

    Re: paying price, I think Obama has gained, not lost, for most of his actions. He seems to know where he wants to be. I don't think he pushes against progressives as a necessity - I think he sincerely doesn't like them or their positions. Maybe too much time with Nader PAC-like orgs where liberal views do get annoying after a while, but not great in running a country after years of liberal bashing.

    Re: Paul - he's a nutcase in his own party - of course he's paid. The only thing he's gained is he's seen as principled, but he wasn't even invited to speak at the GOP convention.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:12am

    If Progressives are frustrated are Rand Paul and Cornel West the best alternatives to vent anger? Neither West nor Paul played any role in the election of Alan Grayson or Elizabeth Warren. Rand Paul would have grudgingly preferred Romney. 

    West and Paul played no role in states legalizing marijuana. Their overall effect is minuscule. It was organized grass roots folks who got and kept the ball rolling on important issues. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 03/16/2013 - 6:07pm

    I'm not "venting anger", thank you. I'm interested in people fighting and protesting bad policy. 

    While I probably don't agree with Rand Paul on anything else, and even here he supported Brennan when I wouldn't, he was the only one to filibuster. Hats off to Rand Paul on this one.

    As for Cornel West, I think he's much more positive than you do (certainly not "Tap Dancing for the Klan"), but we've debated that one to death.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:06am

    I see venting when you use Obummer and Barry, but that's just me. Wattree posts points of view that may be shocking to many Progressives, but theyare sentiments very common in the black community.

    Conversations often center on the true and present danger represented by the modern GOP. The party openly allows racists and race- baiters into it's ranks. Rand Paul is no different than Paul Ryan. Both are no different than Donald Trump. Here is a summary of a CPAC secession on race. The session was about how the GOP could attract more minorities into the party. The conference developed into chaos when a black woman attempted to ask a question. Racists shouted her down. Post event commentary seemed not to find major problems with what occurred. The GOP has no real problems with racists.Even black Conservatives who attended bent over backwards to appease the racists.

    People pretend that what the GOP is doing in blocking virtually anything Obama wants to do has nothing to do with race, That is simply absurd. The bottom line is that praising any Republican is praise for the cesspool the GOP represents. Rand Paul=Paul Ryan= the folks at the CPAC session on race.

    Blacks supported Bill Clinton by large numbers because we knew what empowering the GOP would mean. The current GOP craziness was predictable. While some may view giving kudos to Rand Paul as a good thing, others see it as praise for the racist cesspool. The two cannot be separated. Louis Farrakhan hates the drones too.

    Progressives have other alternatives than praising the theatrics of Rand Paul. Things would be different if organizations like the ACLU weren't actively working to challenge the drone program. Praising Paul changes nothing about the drone program, but does give cover to the racist GOP cesspool.

    You are concerned about my praise for Obama. I'm spending my time trying to defeat Republicans because a know the CPAC folks are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not shocked the Paul Ryan keeps presenting the same Ayn Rand style budget. I'm not surprised that Rand Paul's instinct would have been to vote against the Civil Rights Act. I won't be surprised when the Conservatives on the Supreme Court vote to overturn the Voting Rights Act. Just another day in the life of modern Conservative America.

    You simply cannot understand the threat represented by the GOP. The drones have a legal solution. The GOP is being voted into office by our fellow citizens.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 11:16am

    Christ, you came up with the Obummer invective, I just copied a couple times. I just use Barry when I see articles parading his wisdom as a kindergartner or when he seems to act 6 years old.

    Rand Paul is different than Donald Trump, sorry. Less trustworthy or consistent than his father, but not a full bullgoose loony like Trump. In any case, someone audience member at a CPAC session doesn't tell me the official policy or behavior of CPAC officials, just as Republicans pulling a blog commenter at FiredogLake doesn't tell me what Jane Hamsher or Progressives in general believe.

    The court attacks on Civil Rights legislation is worse than anything that Rand Paul is doing. I suggest Obama should have pushed Harry Reid to change the filibuster law and nominate more candidates to fill empty judicial seats, rather than all this hand-wringing about Rand Paul. Instead we get the Supreme Court saying voting rights acts are now no longer needed, despite significant effort to disenfranchise black voters this last election. But hey, Obama's doing a bang-up job, no criticism zone.

     

     


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 12:27pm

    You might be surprised to find that many Democratic Senators don't want filibuster rules changed because they want the opportunity to use the same rules if they become the minority. But, it's all Obama's fault.

    You are very forgoing of the GOP. The GOP had to be dragged into voting for the Violence Against Women Act because some white guys on Indian Reservations might be at risk. The CPAC session is representative of the GOP.

    Chris Christie is too moderate. Richard Lugar was too moderate. The true saving grace is that Rand Paul will open his mouth again and remind us of his wing-nuttiness. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 1:06pm

    It's primarily Reid's fault, and it's stupid - the Republicans will change the rules to screw Democrats next time they're in charge.

    Obama got elected knowing the Republicans were assholes. Don't come bitching to me now about how tough it is. If Obama didn't want the fucking job or didn't have the balls to do it, he shouldn't have run. Buyer's remorse already?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:06pm

    Here is some of Rand Paul's intelligent discussion on Gay marriage and the age of the Earth


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 1:42pm

    I don't really care. I'm not endorsing him for office - I'm applauding his filibuster on 1 particular topic and whatever attention he brought to it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:03pm

    Do you applaud Minister Farrakhan as well?

    Paul said Obama would kill Americans on US soil.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:36pm

    After Jose Padilla, targeted Awlaki & son, murder of inmate at Gitmo, heavily expanded unprovoked taser attacks by police & other overreach, I'm sure we already kill Americans on US soil, and can only imagine what we'll do with drones. The question is whether we condone it and go public with it as a ho-hum new world post-9/11 experience, or try to maintain support for the behavior outlined in the Constitution.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 4:16pm

    Now I'm really confused. The question here is not about condoning all drone strikes. The question is about Rand Paul and Louis Farrakhnan being the messengers of the opposition. We are agreed that Obama should not be the sole decision maker in the targeting of the drone strikes.

    You now include police tasters in the mix.Is that Obama's fault as well?

    you have dodged the question is Louis Farrakhan, given his baggage, a person who should be praised for his anti- drone efforts?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 6:28pm

    I didn't pick the messenger - lots of Democrats had the opportunity to lead the opposition, to filibuster their own party. You'd think our Constitutional Law president would understand this as well.

    I'm not even praising Rand Paul - I'm supporting his effort as gaining publicity for supporting the Constitution. I'd support Farrakhan as well, except I can't imagine who useful he'd influence. Did Farrakhan make mainstream press so everyone thinks about the danger & invasion of privacy with drones? Rand Paul did. His motivations may suck, but at this point, I don't care. They all suck.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 4:07am

    PeraclesPlease has one big problem with his plaudits for the Pauls. The 'R' after their names. They feed at the same money trough, and run in the same ballot column as George W. Bush, Surge McCain and Moneybags Mitt Romney.

    They bow to the Buddha of the powers that be of the GOP every convention and every election. Neither Ron nor Rand have the convictions, the nerve, or the desire to campaign and run as Independents.


    by NCD on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 1:05pm

    I agree the GOP is a mere subsidiary of the Koch Brothers. As MLK noted about the real Barry, Barry Goldwater, the GOP is willing to associate with the racists. That is unforgivable. Rand Paul will stand silent too. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 1:11pm

    Many of the contributors give to both parties.

    Who financed Joe Biden all these years but Connecticut insurance companies.

    For Harry Reid: "In regard to local issues, ...Reid has opposed the legalization of online poker in the past, but has more recently changed his position, a move that some have argued was influenced by "the hundreds of thousands of dollars Las Vegas casinos contributed to his re-election campaign".[22]"

    From 2008:

    Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

    "Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

    ...For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

    It's a haul that is already raising concerns that, as the nation's faltering economy has become issue No. 1, the two candidates may have a hard time playing tough on issues like market regulation or corporate-tax loopholes.

    "No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The News.

    Wall Street's generosity toward Obama, in particular, would seem to run counter to its self-interests.

    In addition to calling for corporate and capital gains tax hikes, Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

    But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money - winning.

    "In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."

    Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

    McCain's top five include Wall Street's Merrill Lynch ($230,310) and Citigroup ($219,551).

    Obama's Wall Street haul is not the biggest ever. That distinction belongs to President Bush, who as an incumbent in 2004 raised $10,852,696 from Wall Street interests through April that year - about $1 million more than Obama.

    Obama's aides dismiss any suggestion he might be beholden to Wall Street, noting that 93% of his donations are $200 or less and that he took his tough economic message straight to Wall Street in a 2007 speech at Nasdaq headquarters.

    "Sen. Obama went to Wall Street to tell executives that our economy isn't working if they alone are prospering but people living on Main Street are not," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

    What other Democrats have been bought off on particular positions? Are they really so principled? Remember William Jefferson keeping $100,000 in his freezer, and Dems couldn't even get him to resign?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:07pm

    The Pauls are whom I was talking about.

    They are the 2 Headed Boys of the Big Republican Carnival Show. along with Palin, Cruz, Malkin, Ryan, Rubio and the rest.

    Each attracts a certain segment of The Base but will never change anything for the better or for 'freedom'. 

    They are for getting government 'out of the way' of big money and big corporate control, and nothing else.


    by NCD on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:29pm

    Amen

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 3:37pm

    I wouldn't even lump Ron Paul in with his son, much less with the rest.

    Forget it, you want a blanket stereotyped smear, so you got it. Thought for a second we were going to have a real discussion.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 4:12pm

    PP - OK, let's get specific. Can you document one instance where the great blustering Rand Paul sponsored, lobbied for, and fought for passage of any federal government law, restriction, rule or sanction contrary to the interests of Big Money, Wall Street or big corporations?


    by NCD on Sun, 03/17/2013 - 8:03pm

    Filibustering against drones = working against Lockheed Martin & our industrial-military-Homeland Security complex

    Didn't I make it clear a dozen times that this is the only issue I ever noticed partial agreement with him? (unlike his father)  Which doesn't even mean I agree with his motivations.

    But thousands of people I agree with more kept nicely silent. How come no Democrat had to be dragged screaming from the floor? Too much playing nice & footsie with the oligarchy.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 4:07am

    It seems to me that those disagreeing with you do agree on the point Rand Paul is making, they just don't like praising Rand Paul for making it. (Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the general take-away I'm getting.)

    In Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) there's a technique called "shaping" where (loosely speaking) one reinforces improved behaviors even when they're not yet what you'd want them to be. Of course, we know that in Rand Paul's case it's very unlikely that no amount of shaping will get him to where we want him to be, but I agree that it's good to acknowledge those few points where we agree with him, regardless of his motivation.

    The other side (and I could be wrong on this) seems to be taking the Republican-esque approach that you're either with us or your against us and Rand Paul is definitely against us. (If forced to go black/white like that, I'd definitely agree with that assertion.) It seems that by acknowledging that he's right on this one issue we weaken our ability to point out where he's wrong on other issues, which seems very Republican-esque, indeed. I think it works the other way — by acknowledging that he's right on this one issue, it makes our criticism of him on other issues stronger, not weaker.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 9:53am

    In less complicated language, Bob Somerby writes it as "supporting our tribe", rather than supporting logic. facts & issues.

    Of course people will try to extrapolate support on 1 issue to general agreement or just to prove a point. But if it's 1 point, and it's shouted to the hills, it's harder for them to use you.

    Right now our government is in full agreement with the previous administration's war on terror and waging war. We even left in Robert Gates, promoted Petraeus and now are putting in John Brennan, while failing to close or even improve Gitmo. Makes our criticism of George Bush & Dick Cheney irrelevant.

    And while I'm not against working with the Republicans for some compromise, over and over we just use their framing of issues - right now we're fighting the deficit when we don't have to - we need spending & jobs. We're fighting "entitlements" when Social Security pays itself and Medicare is suffering not from funding but from ridiculous overcharged insurance & medication costs.

    It amazes me that we end up agreeing to the GOP so much, but if I support 1 single GOP action, it's beyond the Pale.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 11:43am

    Your analysis may have been true if there were actual moderates in the GOP. In the current situation there is zero benefit to crediting Rand Paul with anything. Rand won the CPAC straw poll. He will take the praise to suggest to independents that he is able to reach across the aisle to Democrats/. Progressives without making any change To his Libertarian platform. As long as the GOP tacks further to the Right what benefit is to be gained. 

    If you are trying to tell Independents that you are giving Rand Paul his due. the received message to Independents may be if he is correct on this issue, what else is he saying that is important?

    Do you have a real life example of your theory working?

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 11:52am

    But I'm not talking about people or motivations. I'm talking about actions, even where that action is merely saying what needs to be said. If he tries to take that praise to suggest to independents that he is able to reach across the aisle, then let him. He will find that to attempt that path is a dangerous game, as that praise comes with 10 times as much condemnation, and if he validates the praise, he also validates the condemnation.

    To answer your question, no. I do not have a real life example of my theory working (in politics, at least), as it would be far too difficult to prove its efficacy even though I believe in it. Let me turn that around: do you have a real life example of your theory working?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 3:36pm

    I think MR and you guys are both getting at important, but different points. Of course, we want to acknowledge people when they do the right thing. As PP says, logic and reason support that approach.

    But MR reminds us that we are now, in effect, in a parliamentary system and another (R), however moderate or reasonable he or she may be, enables the far from moderate leaders of the (R) party to hold enormous power on a vast range of OTHER issues. This is especially true in the House, where the rules give almost dictatorial power to the majority.

    So I might "support" or "acknowlegde" Paul, but I won't support him in the sense of helping him to win. If I'm a Democratic congressperson, as PP well points out, I'll be happy to work with him on specific issues where we agree and there is ground to be gained. But as a simple voter or activist, I'm not going to support his candidacy unless MAYBE he moves my way philosophically and thus on a whole host of other issues. Even still, we have the parliamentary problem to deal with.

    Unfortunately, the parliamentary nature of our politics means that politics is even more of a team sport than it was back in the day, say the 1960s and 1970s. So yes, I support my team and try to reform it from within without giving ammunition to the other side. I can't see any other way making sense, but am, as always, open to other approaches. It certainly doesn't feel very enlightened to be a "party guy."

    Just as an aside, I don't think Paul cares whether a bunch of liberals disagree with him...or agree with him, unless it's a whole lotta liberals. And then he can crow about the rightness of his position (see Krauthammer via PP). But then, likety-split, he tells folks that these liberals agree with him across the board (almost) because he's trying to paint a narrative picture in which all the parts hang together. This is especially true of his father.

    It guess it's less about "praising" and more about giving him material support.

    I was listening to Sarah Palin's speech at CPAC this afternoon, and she said a number of "true" things. In fact, as an Alaskan, she wholly and enthusiastically supports an Alaskan law that one can only call true socialism: Alaska's oil belongs to Alaskans. She said that outright. And, indeed, they all get checks for their share of oil revenues. Imagine if this were true of all the oil on US property and every citizen got a check for his share of oil revenues? Would Palin support that? I might. She might turnaround and denigrate it as awful, horrible, traitorous socialism. So am I going to support her?

    All this said, I do think PP's overarching message--the message I take away--is that liberals shouldn't be ceding ground to various and sundry conservatives on key issues that should be important to us, e.g., drones, killing without due process.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 12:52pm

    Thanks, nice summary.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 1:16pm

    PeraclesPlease, Rand Paul and the Drones! Of course! The only example your drone fearing noggin can come up with?

    Did Paul insert an amendment to actually stop spending Federal money operating The Drones? No.

    Did he sponsor legislation to prohibit use of drones anywhere in the US? No.

    Did he sponsor legislation to destroy all existing drones? No.

    Did he sponsor legislation to defund the CIA and Pentagon budgets for Drone research or development? No.

    NO NO NO. He yakkity yakked on about blowing up Jane Fonda, and fearing the guvment, and in doing so carried water for Big Money, Wall Street and Big Corporations, who love Rand because he, like they, want to keep government 'out of their way' in owning this country.

    You are sucker bait for these flimflam artists PP.


    by NCD on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 12:32pm

    He also didn't solve world peace or cure the common cold. Therefore I must denounce, and join the rest of the left in our little hidey hole.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 1:18pm

    We're safe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz introduced an anti-drone bill that protects us from Obama and Holder.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 2:48pm

    Latest Comments