U.S. Politics V

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

The CBO, which briefly enjoyed a spate of credibility among conservatives when it was saying what they wanted to hear, [url="http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10008"]has just run the numbers[/url] on how the stimulus will affect the economy. They estimate that it will help the economy in the short run by making the recession less severe, and will retard growth by--at most--0.2 of GDP after 2015. That sounds like a trade-off I'll take, although like others I think the stimulus really should have been larger.

[Annelise]

Regarding earmarks.

[quote]In the 110th Congress, McConnell charged a Republican task force with pursuing earmark reform. However, that group's efforts were stymied and their recommendations were never adopted by the Senate Republican Conference.[/quote][url="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/63203.html"]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/63203.html[/url]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blaming Republicans. I'm posting that because I think it's a good example of how such reform gets buried and how, IMO, Congress doesn't really [i]want[/i] to change the earmark system. I think it could be a popular issue, but it just got dwarfed and continues to be dwarfed by our numerous other issues. I'm curious what '09 earmark spending will be compared to '08.

On another front:

[quote]March 4, 2009 | The revelation that the CIA destroyed 92 tapes showing the brutal interrogation of terror suspects provided another stark reminder of how much remains unknown about national security mischief during the Bush administration. On Monday, the Justice Department also released a raft of previously undisclosed legal opinions drafted during the Bush era articulating additional wartime power for the president, on issues ranging from curtailing free speech to conducting warrantless searches.

Against that troubling backdrop, on Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin to study how to conduct an investigation of national security issues during the Bush administration, focused mostly or exclusively on torture. Staff say committee leaders remain genuinely undecided about almost every facet of how to proceed, including the mandate, scope and membership of any investigative body. The hearing will zero in on how, exactly, to move forward.

No decisions have been made on the question of whether, when and how to prosecute Bush officials who may have broken the law. There are certainly attorneys who believe the Obama administration should prosecute such officials for torture, and that the truth will come tumbling out during their trials while justice is also served. There may be more attorneys who believe those prosecutions would fail on both counts. Experts on government fact-finding missions interviewed by Salon, however, articulated surprisingly similar advice for Congress on how to conduct spadework on the torture issue, including unanimity on exactly who should not participate in an investigation: current members of Congress.

[...]

A Gallup poll last month showed that 62 percent of Americans support either an investigation or prosecution of Bush administration officials for torture. Sources familiar with the administration's thinking say Obama's team has thoroughly thought through the concept of a torture investigation. President Obama, however, has remained cool to the notion in his public statements.

"I thought all along that Obama would not be particularly inclined to go after the perpetrators," said Mendez. "His theory of overcoming partisanship would be his priority." That doesn't mean doom, however, for a commission. "It seems to me that Congress is trying to push Obama in the right direction," he added. "I don't think the Obama administration will stand in the way of justice."[/quote][url="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/04/torture_commission/index.html"]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/...sion/index.html[/url]

[Annelise]

I've read some complaints about how immigration is being ignored. Myself, I say damn, there *is* a lot going on and it's only been 6 weeks. Be that as it may:

[quote]Obama said that he is “very committed” to comprehensive reform and that legislation would be “drawn up over the next several months.” Not years — months.[/quote][url="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/"]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/[/url]

We'll see.

[Annelise]

Couple foreign policy articles on Russia, Eastern Europe and Iran:

[url="http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0243260520090303"]http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0243260520090303[/url]

[url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aTafsPsPnkdw&refer=europe"]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=europe[/url]

[url="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/930779.html"]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/A...ory/930779.html[/url]

Sounds like we're going to toss that missle system as too costly and ineffective if that will get the Russians on board with helping to stunt Iran's nuclear ambitions, something the latter will not be happy about and I imagine. I suspect it will retard any efforts to gain their help in the region in fact, but this fellow seems slightly more optimistic:

[quote]Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested that the U.S. and Iran build trust by working on issues of common interest - Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"If Iran's nuclear ambitions do indeed reflect a sense of insecurity vis-a-vis the United States, building cooperation and goodwill in Iraq and Afghanistan could set a new tone and context for the relationship, which could allay Tehran's threat perception and compel its leaders to reassess their nuclear approach," Sadjadpour told the committee.

The Obama administration might make progress with Iran if it sidesteps Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and deals directly with the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Dealing with the cleric, however, won't be easy.

"After three decades of being immersed in a 'death to America' culture, it may not be possible for Khamenei to reinvent himself at age 69," Sadjadpour said. "But if there's one thing that is tried and true, it's that an engagement approach toward Iran that aims to ignore, bypass or undermine Khamenei is guaranteed to fail."[/quote]

[Shryke]

[url="http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2009/03/pundits-are-wrong-about-everything.php"]http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2009/03...-everything.php[/url]
[quote]Writing about Jonah Lehrer's book on decision making in The Sunday Times, I didn't mention the findings of Philip Tetlock at Berkeley. [b]He studied pundits and discovered they were, to a rough approximation, always wrong when making predictions. He took 284 pundits and asked them questions about the future. Their performance was worse than chance. With three possible answers, they were right less than 33 per cent of the time. A monkey chucking darts would have done better.[/b] This is consoling. More consoling still is Tetlock's further finding that [b]the more certain a pundit was, the more likely he was to be wrong. Their problem being that they couldn't self-correct, presumably because they'd invested so much of their personality and self-esteem in a specific view.[/b] (That makes me think of so many people, almost everybody, in fact.)
Tetlock said: 'The dominant danger remains hubris, the vice of closed-mindedness, of dismissing dissonant possibilites too quickly.'
Personally, I am fully aware that I am wrong about everything, a posture which, if applied correctly, would make me right 33 per cent of the time in Tetlock's tests and, therefore, a better pundit than the pundits.[/quote]

[palaeologos]

Tangentially related to pundits & their predictions :

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/jon-stewart-eviscerates-c_n_172057.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/j...c_n_172057.html[/url]

Especially enjoyable for me was the footage of that apoplectic windbag Jim Cramer being wrong, wrong, wrong about...well, nearly everything.

[Bittersteel]

Triskele, EFCA moves the power in the labor battles from the corporations (who can intimidate/union-bust to their hearts' content, under Reagan-era provisions) to the employees. It's less a throwback to 50s-style Hoffa tactics than it is a much-needed remedy; in a civilized society, companies should not be allowed to bully and cajole their workers to the degree that they do.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Bittersteel' post='1709396' date='Mar 5 2009, 13.12']Triskele, EFCA moves the power in the labor battles from the corporations (who can intimidate/union-bust to their hearts' content, under Reagan-era provisions) to the employees. It's less a throwback to 50s-style Hoffa tactics than it is a much-needed remedy; in a civilized society, companies should not be allowed to bully and cajole their workers to the degree that they do.[/quote]

I agree with this. In my experience, in nearly every situation employers have the upper hand over their staff, and they use it. I know we've all heard stories about employees threatening to sue frivolously for discrimination, abusing workers' comp, etc, and those things do happen, but nine times out of ten, the employer holds the advantage. They control the salary, and, more importantly, they control your health care. Unemployment insurance can tide you over until the next job, but COBRA payments will bone you.

[DanteGabriel]

Obama's economic policies are more popular than Saint Ronnie's... in a FOX poll.

[quote name='Talking Points Memo']Check out this question from the new Fox News poll: "What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?"

The answer: Obama 49%, Reagan 40%.[/quote]
[url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-preferred-over-reagan----in-fox-news-poll.php"]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03...x-news-poll.php[/url]

ETA: As the first commenter on the TPM post asked, "How long before the Fox pollster has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh?"

[AndyP]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/rollins.republicans/index.html"]Ed Rollins[/url]

[quote]The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.[/quote]

[palaeologos]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1709686' date='Mar 5 2009, 12.47'][url="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/rollins.republicans/index.html"]Ed Rollins[/url][/quote]

Limbaugh's been a conservative icon for 35 years? Somebody needs to re-check their math; it's only been about 20 years that his show's been nationally available.

[Annelise]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1709685' date='Mar 5 2009, 15.46']Obama's economic policies are more popular than Saint Ronnie's... in a FOX poll.[/quote]

:stunned:

It's like a Twilight Zone episode.

[AndyP]

[quote name='palaeologos' post='1709691' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.50']Limbaugh's been a conservative icon for 35 years? Somebody needs to re-check their math; it's only been about 20 years that his show's been nationally available.[/quote]
Regardless, he is correct the debate is idiotic. To me the real danger is that if the Republican party is unable to right it's ship and if Obamas stimulus fails, things will get real ugly quick. The American people are going to cast about for an alternative. If the Republican party isn't ready to be that alternative then we will look somewhere else. The nature of the current crisis will not afford anyone a 2nd chance and Democrats won't get one by default.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1709685' date='Mar 5 2009, 15.46']Obama's economic policies are more popular than Saint Ronnie's... in a FOX poll.


[url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-preferred-over-reagan----in-fox-news-poll.php"]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03...x-news-poll.php[/url]

ETA: As the first commenter on the TPM post asked, "How long before the Fox pollster has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh?"[/quote]

Heh. This makes me think of the much-repeated [i]America-is-a-center-right-nation[/i] thing everyone was squawking last year. I don't believe it. I think people are conservative not in a political sense (opposing abortion choice, pro-vouchers, tax cuts, etc.) but in the sense that they approach change cautiously, particularly if that change involves a good deal of restructuring and taxation. That's not the same as political conservatism.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1709714' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.04']The nature of the current crisis will not afford anyone a 2nd chance and Democrats won't get one by default.[/quote]

Bush got three more chances than that, so maybe Obama has more breathing room than you think.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1709714' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.04']Regardless, he is correct the debate is idiotic. To me the real danger is that if the Republican party is unable to right it's ship and if Obamas stimulus fails, things will get real ugly quick. The American people are going to cast about for an alternative. If the Republican party isn't ready to be that alternative then we will look somewhere else. The nature of the current crisis will not afford anyone a 2nd chance and Democrats won't get one by default.[/quote]

I think you're overestimating the American voter. If Obama's economic plan is failing in 2012, then the Republican ship will be lifted more or less by default, no matter if the only people left on it are Michael Steele and David Vitter.

[IheartTesla]

I'm kinda worried by the number of Obama first choice Cabinet/non-Cabinet appointees are falling by the wayside. Daschle, that other guy who defaulted, some dude with views on Israel, and now [i]Sanjay Gupta[/i]?

Sanjay, Sanjay, Sanjay....

[Fatuous]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1709782' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.42']I think you're overestimating the American voter. If Obama's economic plan is failing in 2012, then the Republican ship will be lifted more or less by default, no matter if the only people left on it are Michael Steele and David Vitter.[/quote]

There you go again, using the same phrase. I think you're underestimating the situation and President Obama. If Obama's economic plan is failing in 2012, Republicans will have to work twice as hard as they are now to make sure the blame is firmly affixed to Obama. As of now, 84% of Americans blame Bush and his policies and Obama is savvy enough to reaffirm that every time he must. Democrats will always blame Bush {oh yes, we on the Left will never forget} and Moderates will lean towards him if only because he would be the incumbent.

All political parties end eventually and here's my advice to the Republicans in order to save what's left of their party: Cast off the old name, throw the hardcore supply side conservatives overboard, leave the social conservatives to sink or swim on their own, build a new brand around Moderate Libertarianism and see if it floats.

I'll say what's on everyone's minds: Republicans lack the courage of their convictions where it counts, when it counts. If Republican Governors are dead set against the Stimulus then they must not touch it at all. Republican Senators, now is the time to band together and fillibuster your guts out for what you believe, right? Republican Representatives, go do what you want because no one gives a damn what that is.

The only Republicans making political stands are the ones who don't have power {That includes the House}. I suppose Republicans can always run again on a platform of "Tax Cuts, Etc" but I'm not sure if that would work now. Republicans gained power by creating a grand coalition of social conservatives {Religious Right}, fiscal conservatives and diplomatic conservatives {neo conservatives}. Each part except the neo cons has been betrayed by Bush and the neo cons proved their own ideas were worthless. Can there be a GOP leader who has a wide enough stance the ride all three horses to the White House? Rephrasing it: Are people dumb enough to fall for the same trick twice? No, don't answer that one.

Last point: Are there any ideas left in the GOP that haven't been proven to be "bad" if not "disasterous"? They would have been in a better position if they managed to stop at "wrong".

[AndyP]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1709755' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.26']Bush got three more chances than that, so maybe Obama has more breathing room than you think.[/quote]
TN

The ship of state didn't really start to sink for President Bush until after he had already lost the American people. If the stimulus fails the American people will see it as a struggle for survival. Most of Bush's screw ups didn't put the nation at risk in quit the same way. Yes they did a lot of damage but they didn't put the nation at risk until the end, as I said the peoples confidence had already been lost.

[The Man]

When predicting the future I think it's important to draw lessons from the past. It's been awhile since I've read detailed history of the Great Depression, but from what I remember it seems that Roosevelt started with somewhat moderate proposals and, when those proved not to work, shifted further into Keynesianism, with substantial support from the masses. I suspect a similar thing may end up occurring now, should the stimulus package already passed prove to be inadequate.