dagblog - Comments for "Is Obama Losing The Debt Ceiling Debate On Purpose?"

Yeah. I understand the logic.

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:18:49 +0000

In reply to No, I get it. I'm just not

Yeah. I understand the logic. Just don't think it works. As long as the powers that be can be assured that the people will follow the carefully laid out track they've created, the powers that be will do whatever the hell they want.

It's a basic sales technique: give two options both of which result in the outcome you want while giving the customer the illusion of choosing something ... "so, do you want to pay in cash or would you like the easy payment plan?" By picking either ... the decision to take home a smelly, ugly, bloated boar that will tear up every living thing in the entire yard, break in to the garage and destroy the car, terrorize both the dog and the cat all the while demanding endless resources for it's upkeep is carried ... a-gain. Brilliant. Your argument is that because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, at least you'll jump with the people who are trying not to cause any negative environmental impact with their splattered brains.

As for priorities, I don't see how we can move to the point where we seriously address the fact that preserving, protecting and providing to humanity in their daily lives an environmental legacy is indeed a matter of social justice until people aren't worried about where they are going to get the resources to survive. It just seems to me like Obama is milking that reality and helping things go in the opposite direction of good on this front too.

Obama's administration intervened to get an injunction lifted that would have required the exact well that blew up in the Gulf to be halted ... halted specifically for not having an adequate environmental disaster response strategy. He's pro-nuke. Pro east-coast offshore. I'm not 100% on ANWAR, but he's certainly down with under-ice arctic expansion. We've had half a dozen reasonably major oil spills on his watch in our internal waterways (another one in Montana like a week ago). And Massey is STILL running fucked up mining operations. And again, the position on mountaintop removal isn't exactly solid here.

I'm not hearing peep one from ANYONE on ANY of it. Isn't the loss of traditional Democratic positioning on all the stuff I listed (and more) - for the sole reason of not wanting to weaken a Democratic president - a far more devastating blow than having a Republican who WANTS to do all that stuff facing off against a Democratic party that has a newfound political interest in seeing the GOP not be successful and using every available tool to stop them?

I see where you are coming from, and totally respect it if that's how you want to vote. There is mounting evidence ... like decades worth now ... that it really isn't working. We're just losing a war of attrition - liberals, conservatives, all of us. I still think for people to start voting from all available choices for the one that honestly represents them best is the only way to improve democracy and dilute the power of corporate money over our government. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and meet in the middle for shared objectives where possible.

Exactly. History often shows

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:35:09 +0000

In reply to The one thing we all can

Exactly. History often shows polling on races, particularly media-driven polling, significantly differs from final results. I imagine polling for a caucus has got to be more difficult to do accurately than for other sorts of races.

No, I get it. I'm just not

Verified Atheist — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:14:34 +0000

In reply to You clearly don't get it. It

No, I get it. I'm just not anticipating that there'll be any better choices in 2012.

As for this not being a binary decision, I also get that, but I'm pragmatic about it. I know that one of two things will happen in 2012: Obama will get re-elected or a Republican will be elected. Other options are about as likely as the United States ceasing to exist. Possible, but very unlikely. So, in the end, my options are to vote for Obama, to not vote for Obama or the Republican, or to vote for the Republican. Of those three options, the first one is the one that makes it least likely the Republican will get in office. If it turns out that I think the Republican is actually no worse than Obama, then that metric changes, but while slightly more likely than the other scenarios I mentioned (I made that conclusion in 1996, for example), I just don't see it happening this time around.

If it helps you to understand where I'm coming from, I'm incredibly concerned about our environmental future. I think that in my lifetime (I expect to live to be 100 or so, giving me another 50-60 years), the environmental issues will be seen as incredibly important to social justice, even more so than now.

P.S. I'm nothing like a typical Independent nor like a typical Democrat, to the degree that either of those even exist. My point being is that what's important to me is not what's important to a lot of other people.

The one thing we all can

Elusive Trope — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:53:03 +0000

In reply to I didn't give an analysis of

The one thing we all can agree upon is that the opening rounds will be interesting.

In July 2007, there weren't many predicting the young senator from Illinois with the middle name Hussein would defeat Clinton and Edwards in the Iowa caucus.

From a July 27, 2007 article on CNN

A new poll of Iowa caucus-goers by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV in Des Moines shows former Sen. John Edwards in the lead for the Democratic nomination with 27 percent. Sen. Hillary Clinton comes in second with 22 percent, and Sen. Barack Obama is third with 16 percent.

Clinton and Obama have both dropped 6 points since the last Iowa poll in May. What happened? Here's one theory from Edwards. "We've had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems that this country's faced," Edwards said.

If Clinton and Obama are down in Iowa, who's up? Undecided is up the most (6 percentage points). New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is up 4 percentage points. Richardson's dogged campaign may be beginning to pay off.

Go Richardson!

I didn't give an analysis of

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:37:34 +0000

In reply to Your analysis with Paul is

I didn't give an analysis of how I think he'll do with the strategy in terms of delegates. Just explaining his objectives. We all saw how things worked out for him last time. He ended up with zero delegates and was all but banned from the floor.

Unless he earns zero delegates this time around, the party will still have to decide how to deal with the convention. And frankly, from that perspective the stakes are WAY higher for them this time around after their last disaster, internally speaking. The fallout they are dealing with at the state level really isn't a joke. Cost 'em Nevada at least.

Thinking about it though, you do bring up an interesting dynamic with Bachmann. Many of Paul's strongest states have late primaries. I say Bachmann doesn't have the gumption to take it anywhere near the end, she's playing a traditional partisan thing. Do you really see her winning New Hampshire? Hell, you really see her taking Iowa? I'm pretty skeptical of even that. I'm betting she's out after the first couple majors if she hangs in that long. If I recall, many folks were all a-twitter about Trump being serious not three weeks ago.

But I don't think Paul is much counting on the neocons that are attracted to Bachman anyhow, really. They mostly didn't vote for him last time. It's the whole two factions with the same name thing that's throwing you off. The Tea Party wing of the Tea Party pretty much relies on operatives provided by GOP establishment powers to mobilize on an actual political level at this point. If the CPAC poll is any indicator, Paul's guys are still working the inside game with now well-seasoned ops.

The opening rounds should be interesting.

Well, for one thing planks

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:00:52 +0000

In reply to So you think the planks of a

Well, for one thing planks mean something a bit different to Republicans than they do Democrats. They wave them in each other's faces and rally around 'em and primary each other over it and stuff. At the moment, democracy actually appears rather more robust on that side of the aisle. Batshit crazy, sure ... but more robust.

But it's more than that. The negotiation process is where the power is divvied up ... where the quiet little positions that nobody ever really talks about but that hold crazy sway get selected, etc. Party rules actually allow a credentialed dissident faction to cause quite a lot of mischief for the cameras if they can't come to back room agreements. The planks are visible acknowledgment for the troops and formalization of the assertions that will be made to the electorate - which, assumedly, the electorate will then expect to see a close approximation of if the party is elected.

I don't remember Jessie Jackson taking his candidacy to the end of the primaries and into the convention - didn't he ultimately pledge his delegates before all was said and done? But yeah. The party kind of has to win for most of those positions to result in any demonstrative national impact. Otherwise it's just shoulder-jockey position for the next round of partisan wrangling two years down the road.

It's a similar thing to Hillary's strategy culminating in the big play with that whole rules committee thing - she needed to cut her deals before the convention (for several reasons). Obviously, Hillary was starting from a much stronger power base and was able to clean up. Paul's stated ambitions were a bit more modest than what Hillary pulled off ... but the GOP reaction was still stunning.

And to be clear, we're not

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:14:50 +0000

In reply to You clearly don't get it. It

And to be clear, we're not dealing with a binary choice here. That is an artificial construct of the major parties. You guys arbitrarily limit yourselves to just a choice between two corporate overlords.

It is completely possible to vote to fire Obama and not vote to hire Romney.

You clearly don't get it. It

kgb999 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:10:26 +0000

In reply to At this point, I can't think

You clearly don't get it. It doesn't matter if Romney might be slightly worse on some hypothetical metric. You deal with that *if* it happens ... just like we're dealing with Obama.

The more important question is if he has actually DONE something that should disqualify him? You know, in real life. What policy did he actually advance that was as bad as slashing all three of the major pillars of America's social support infrastructure? Even Paul Ryan didn't go that far. You are still contrasting hypotheticals that possibly may never manifest against a demonstrated reality.

Vote like a chump if you want. Just realize, if your vote carries the day and we still end up with shit policy, the way you voted clearly isn't any more logical than the way someone else, who reached a different conclusion, chose to. It's pretty clear a vote for Obama will have the guaranteed result of lots more shit policy - wholly unopposed by the Democratic party he holds paralyzed no less. Voting in agreement to having someone advance policy that is in opposition to what you actually want can hardly be described as logical. So, maybe the "We're so smart and everyone else is a dumbass" thing is a little absurd. I don't really see how you can present agreeing in advance to fail as a more plausible a solution to getting us what America needs than any solutions it is asserted progressives don't have.

Maybe AT and Brew are right and I don't know crap from what "real" independents think. Who knows. we'll see soon enough. But if I'm right, your argument isn't going to change a single mind.

Or maybe Obama will look at his numbers, freak out, and go hard populist to try and land this puppy and we'll be in a totally different discussion come Nov. 2012. One can hope.

Dang! I shoulda had you guys

The Decider — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:08:32 +0000

In reply to I'm just getting a blank page

Dang! I shoulda had you guys working for the NSA with all this secret code crap.

Interesting. Paul is

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:44:56 +0000

In reply to Dreamer, this is right but

Interesting.

Paul is distinct from the Tea Parties, but there is still plenty of overlap.

Sure, on tax and spending cuts. Maybe for some that's enough for them to swallow him, or support him tactically or strategically. I still see huge differences on social and foreign policy that would seem to me to severely limit his ability to have real influence within the Republican party. But I am first to admit I am not frequenting those circles these days. Are you seeing any signs that he is trimming any of his views, maybe thinking he can pick up a head of steam and get some real traction in his quest for the nomination? He seems like a pretty principled and sincere guy to me, especially for a politician. No doubt accounting for some of his appeal to people who disagree with him on some really big things to them.