U.S. Politics III

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1685231' date='Feb 12 2009, 22.35']WHA?

Dude, Democrats have been painted as "Weak On National Security" pretty much since Vietnam.

Republicans are automatically assumed to be bull-busting hard-asses who are great at "keeping us safe".

For Democrats, even being a decorated war veteran won't save you from being labeled a cowardly surrender-monkey.[/quote]

I do agree with that but my comment was centered on the combination of Bush's War of Terrorism, the 2002 and 2004 election cycles and the wording of the Iraq vote to answer the question of why the Democrats blindly followed his lead in voting for the Resolution. You have to remember that Bush was actually popular in late 2001/2002. It wasn't a vote of "we must show National Security strength for the 2004 election" but rather a "vote of confidence", explicitly expressed in the wording of the resolution.

Confidence in Bush, we were so naive in those days...

The 2002 Iraq vote as used the 2008 Democratic primary? It was a no win situation for Senator Clinton; She couldn't say "It was only a year after 9/11, we had to have faith in our President, that he would take America on the right course. Our vote for Bush's actions in Iraq was based on what he should have been and not what he became" because Obama already handicapped the race by placing the onus of the vote in the Primary on the Democrats that didn't vote their own principle.

That's easy for him to say as he wasn't in Congress in 2002, a supremely dickish move and one that impressed me very much. And giving Bush [i]carte blanche[/i] {Yes, I know the term, Altherion. Thanks anyway} to do as he liked in Iraq is indefensible considering that they should have known better. It was fairly obvious even to me that Bush II wanted to refight the Iraq War in the name of Bush I. But again, "9/11".

"I was for the Iraq War before I was against it."
Democratic Presidential nominee Kerry in 2004. The Republican strategy was based on making the 2002 vote into Congress' Declaration of War and it was so effective, it's even seen as such today {we really should know better now}. Kerry should have forcefully countered with a statement claiming that the vote wasn't a vote in favor of war, it was a vote for Bush's judgement.

"I was for Bush's judgement before I saw it in action. Now I'm against it." Rove, that magnificient bastard, made Kerry run against the war and his vote {two seperate things} rather than Bush and his nonexistant leadership skills in said war.

Seriously, Bush should have lost after "Mission Accomplished".


[quote]If you're not willing to sacrifice your career to be right on sending American men and women to die, not to mention all the locals, you're worthless as a politician. If there's ever a time to stand on principle that is it. Plus, a war resolution supported by the majority of both parties had a lot more sway than a partisan measure would have. The Democratic party can talk for hours about not really having wanted the war; their voting record speaks otherwise.[/quote]

I'll repeat it one final time: The War in Iraq was 100% Bush's choice. You comment is nonsense in reference to such a vote because Bush didn't give anything for Congress to stand on: Bush lied about his Iraq intelligence, he pumped up the "smoking gun into a mushroom cloud" Iraqi threat and it was him who decided to put boots on the ground in Iraq without a good Reconstruction/post-War plan. The situation would have been better if the Republican controlled House and Senate provided oversight, any oversight anywhere, but that didn't happen either.

On the other hand: If you're saying Bush was worthless as a politician because he knew the truth but sent people to die based on lies then I agree with you 100%.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1685584' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.16']On the other hand: If you're saying Bush was worthless as a politician because he knew the truth but sent people to die based on lies then I agree with you 100%.[/quote]
Actually I'd say it makes him a fine [i]politician[/i], with a well-honed low animal cunning and a shamelessness that served him well in achieving his agenda. What he did makes him a worthless and despicable human being.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1685543' date='Feb 13 2009, 09.35']People don't suicide their own careers (unless you're John McCain running for president in 2008)...[/quote]
And how much of a career would he have left at his age anyway?

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1685619' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.37']And how much of a career would he have left at his age anyway?[/quote]
Not much of one, but he'll certainly never recapture the dignity he lost with his various electoral stunts like the campaign "suspension", the farcical Palin nomination, or the drafting of a lying douchebag plumber to be his populist campaign surrogate.

[DanteGabriel]

More on the Census brouhaha as another Republican attempt to make a crisis out of not much at all:

[quote name='Washington Post article']The White House announced its decision last week, as minority groups raised concerns about Gregg's past opposition to Census funding. Obama administration staffers said the decision was based in part on historical precedence during the Clinton administration.

"As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President's desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement.

"This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority."

In a letter to President Obama earlier this week, House Republicans urged him to reconsider his plan, calling it an "unprecedented politicization of the Census" that would "open the door to massive waste and abuse in the expenditure of taxpayer funds, billions of which are distributed on the basis of Census data."

"There is no legitimate historical precedent for placing the nonpartisan, apolitical Census Bureau under the control of political operatives on the White House staff," the letter said.

But Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 Census on budgeting, advertising and outreach efforts. In an e-mail, Prewitt said he never met with anyone "more senior than a deputy chief of staff, except once when I met with the entire cabinet on how each member could assist in the large outreach effort then underway."

Other former Census directors agreed that coordination with the White House on budgeting and outreach was appropriate while data collection and analysis should be kept separate.

As for potential political interference, "It's virtually impossible to do something wrong without someone finding out about it," said Vincent P. Barabba, who ran the 1980 Census. "It's about as transparent an agency that exists."

Barbara Everitt Bryant, who served as director during the 1990 Census, said: "I would have liked a little of the bully pulpit help, because one of the big things is just to get everyone to answer the questionnaire. The president would have a lot more clout on that than anything we could have done at the Census bureau."[/quote]

[url="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/02/_sen_judd_gregg_said.html"]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...gregg_said.html[/url]

The Republicans have been in full mountain-from-a-molehill mode since they lost control of Congress. The more I read and hear, the more convinced I am that, while Gregg may have had legitimate and appropriate differences with Obama on Commerce policies, there is a concerted effort on the part of the national GOP to push a no-cooperation policy with Obama. They see their Reaganite revolution collapsing under its emptiness, and are trying to stave off the utter discrediting of everything they've pretended to stand for for thirty years.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1685619' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.37']And how much of a career would he have left at his age anyway?[/quote]

That was a tongue-in-cheek comment, although one might say he trashed Sarah Palin's future prospects along with his own. If she seeks office outside Alaska she's going to have to convince alot of Americans that she's not the fumbling, stammering dummy they saw on Katie Couric. And it's much easier to get people to form an opinion than it is to convince them to change one.

[Commodore]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1685755' date='Feb 13 2009, 11.06']The Republicans have been in full mountain-from-a-molehill mode since they lost control of Congress. The more I read and hear, the more convinced I am that, while Gregg may have had legitimate and appropriate differences with Obama on Commerce policies, there is a concerted effort on the part of the national GOP to push a no-cooperation policy with Obama. They see their Reaganite revolution collapsing under its emptiness, and are trying to stave off the utter discrediting of everything they've pretended to stand for for thirty years.[/quote]

It's making a mountain out a molehill to expect more than 24 hours to read a thousand page bill that spends a trillion dollars? How could anyone vote for that in good conscience?

They were completely shut out of the conference comittee, not a single GOP house member had input. Obama having them over for tea doesn't consitute bipartisanship. If you have no problem passing a bill you haven't read that spends a trillion dollars, go for it, you don't need the other party anyway.

But this no cooperation stuff is baloney. Obama should have invited GOP leaders to help craft a bill if he wanted their support, he would have been able to get most of what he wanted and totally disarmed the other side. And it should have been bare bones tax credits and some infrastructure spending. That kind of bill would have been hard to oppose politically, even if it spent alot.

You let Pelosi write it, this is what you get. A crap sandwich.

Obama is getting rolled by Pelosi and letting Rahm Emanuel run wild with Chicago style favors and shenanigans, he needs to step up or else it's gonna be Jimmy Carter II.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1685787' date='Feb 13 2009, 12.31']It's making a mountain out a molehill to expect more than 24 hours to read a thousand page bill that spends a trillion dollars? How could anyone vote for that in good conscience?[/quote]
Most of them voted for the Patriot Act without reading it. That bill was rushed and ramrodded through Congress, too. With fulsome accusations of treason and wanting America to suffer another attack for anyone who dared raise an objection. I rather think Congress is used to voting for shit that they didn't read, because they're all voting along party affiliation anyway.

Now, I don't like the slapdash and rushed nature of the Stimulus bill. They should have allowed more time for reading and debate. Geithner's been disappointing so far, and it's disappointing that the administration hasn't properly staffed Treasury to help him out.

Your selective outrage and conveniently blank memory is always entertaining. Cry me a fucking river about the Republicans being shut out of government (which I think is an exaggeration and a funny thing to say when there are two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, but the GOP has been whining for the last two years like their travails are unique in all of history, so this is not surprising). One wonders if they feel even a twinge of the shame of self-recognition about the way they handled government when they had control. At least the President talks to them, which is a damn sight further than Democrats got with Bush when he was in full on Imperial Oedipus mode. Plus, no one (except me) is calling them traitors for refusing to support a President in the middle of a national crisis.

You are assuming that the Congressional GOP caucus is a group of well-intentioned people who would negotiate in good faith, which I believe to be utterly false. What they're doing is demanding things go their way, from a position of utter weakness, and they've shown no interest in doing anything except obstructing a popular new President with more of an electoral mandate than Bush ever enjoyed. They have no ideas and they are watching a liberal try and clean up the mess that decades of trickle down bullshit and cronyist deregulation have brought us, and all they're doing is trying to make Obama fail so they can improve their position for 2010.

[Shryke]

[quote]Obama should have invited GOP leaders to help craft a bill if he wanted their support, [b]he would have been able to get most of what he wanted[/b] and totally disarmed the other side. [b]And it should have been bare bones tax credits and some infrastructure spending.[/b] That kind of bill would have been hard to oppose politically, even if it spent alot.[/quote]

Yeah, this doesn't make sense together at all.

Obama knew what he wanted, the GOP wanted tax cuts and refused to vote for it in the House. After that, they basically said "Ok, if you don't wanna be part of this, we'll do it without you".

[Altherion]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1685787' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.31']They were completely shut out of the conference comittee, not a single GOP house member had input.[/quote]
I don't see anything wrong with that. What the House Republicans wanted was radically different from what the Democrats want and there is no point in wasting anyone's time on reestablishing this fact in yet another committee. I'm pretty sure the Republicans who were willing to compromise on something closer to what the Democrats intended (Collins, Snow, Spectre) were consulted.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1685787' date='Feb 13 2009, 12.31']It's making a mountain out a molehill to expect more than 24 hours to read a thousand page bill that spends a trillion dollars? How could anyone vote for that in good conscience?

They were completely shut out of the conference comittee, not a single GOP house member had input. Obama having them over for tea doesn't consitute bipartisanship. If you have no problem passing a bill you haven't read that spends a trillion dollars, go for it, you don't need the other party anyway.[/quote]

Uh-huh. And when Bush was in office and the Republicans controlled Congress, they allowed [i]so [/i]much Democratic input in law-making. In this instance, they are now enjoying the same crap they served up for so long. And may they savor every bite.

[Green Apple Fossoway]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1685900' date='Feb 13 2009, 13.03']Uh-huh. And when Bush was in office and the Republicans controlled Congress, they allowed [i]so [/i]much Democratic input in law-making. In this instance, they are now enjoying the same crap they served up for so long. And may they savor every bite.[/quote]

Is this stimulus bill supposed to help us move forward out of this mess, or settle a grudge between Democrats and Republicans? I'd have been much more impressed if they'd actually included the House Republicans, even if it had taken a little more time, and made the bill sway a little more republican (which to me, when it comes to money, means short-sighted, for the most part).

Oh, and Scot: without school buses I would have been completely unable to go to school. I lived in the country surrounded by old families. There was nobody within twenty miles of me in any direction that went to school. I'm also a little confused how you think having more schools in general will save money compared to having buses. Which do you thing costs more to maintain: a building, or a bus?

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Green Apple Fossoway' post='1686183' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.27']Is this stimulus bill supposed to help us move forward out of this mess, or settle a grudge between Democrats and Republicans? I'd have been much more impressed if they'd actually included the House Republicans, even if it had taken a little more time, and made the bill sway a little more republican (which to me, when it comes to money, means short-sighted, for the most part).[/quote]

From what I have seen, President Obama [i]tried [/i]to get Republicans on board, but they wouldn't budge. After years of spending and mounds of debt, they've all of a sudden decided that government expenditure is a bad thing. They were dealing in terms of what they hope is smart politics, not good faith, so I'm not terribly concerned about them.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Green Apple Fossoway' post='1686183' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.27']Is this stimulus bill supposed to help us move forward out of this mess, or settle a grudge between Democrats and Republicans? I'd have been much more impressed if they'd actually included the House Republicans, even if it had taken a little more time, and made the bill sway a little more republican (which to me, when it comes to money, means short-sighted, for the most part).[/quote]
I think Obama made a good-faith effort to get input from Congressional Republicans, but their own rhetoric has been very harsh and uncooperative. In fact, Senator Gregg, the tendered-and-then-refused Commerce nominee, [url="http://\\itapp01\public\Raid_4.52"]fessed up[/url] that Obama was guaranteed to get at least 38 votes in opposition on the stimulus bill.

What use is trying to include people who are only going to negotiate in bad faith?

As Andrew Sullivan put it:

[quote name='Andrew Sullivan']The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.

The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency. The rest is transparent cant.

...

The chance of real entitlement reform - the one thing that can indeed put the US back on a path to fiscal sanity - is real in the first year of an Obama presidency. But it will require bipartisanship; and if a decent fiscal conservative like Gregg is simply forced by his own party to have no role in it, then it will not happen. My sense is that this is indeed why he felt it necessary to withdraw.

The GOP is not interested in the long term fiscal health of this country. Their reckless stewardship over the last eight years proves that. They are not interested in helping this new president, who has done everything he can to create a civil atmosphere, to use this moment to prevent the worst in the short term and move to improve matters in the long term. Instead, they spin.[/quote]
[url="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/what-should-we.html"]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-should-we.html[/url]

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1685543' date='Feb 13 2009, 09.35']You actually think a politician is going to take a politically unpopular stand based on [i]principle[/i]?

::pauses to giggle hysterically::[/quote]

Well, I know many of our politicians are fetid pond scum that will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Yes, they should. Politics is serious business. Your decisions as a politician directly effect the life and death of your people. When politicians care only for power and nothing for service, this is when liberal Democracy dies.

[Green Apple Fossoway]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1686195' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.36']From what I have seen, President Obama [i]tried [/i]to get Republicans on board, but they wouldn't budge. After years of spending and mounds of debt, they've all of a sudden decided that government expenditure is a bad thing. They were dealing in terms of what they hope is smart politics, not good faith, so I'm not terribly concerned about them.[/quote]

And from what I've seen Obama didn't put nearly enough pressure on the House Dems to actually try to play ball with Republicans without hitting them in the balls with the bat first. I don't care if they're diffucult to deal with you should still at least try and work with them. Take the high road and make them look petty or childish if they're not willing to be reasonable. At least then Obama could actually show that he made every good faith effort to work with them instead of just saying he did. Words mean nothing in politics, you want to prove you mean what you say, show me actions that verify it.

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1685584' date='Feb 13 2009, 10.16']I'll repeat it one final time: The War in Iraq was 100% Bush's choice. You comment is nonsense in reference to such a vote because Bush didn't give anything for Congress to stand on: Bush lied about his Iraq intelligence, he pumped up the "smoking gun into a mushroom cloud" Iraqi threat and it was him who decided to put boots on the ground in Iraq without a good Reconstruction/post-War plan. The situation would have been better if the Republican controlled House and Senate provided oversight, any oversight anywhere, but that didn't happen either.

On the other hand: If you're saying Bush was worthless as a politician because he knew the truth but sent people to die based on lies then I agree with you 100%.[/quote]

The failure of the last eight years is a failure of our entire political class. By focusing only on the single worst offender in that regard, you ignore the systemic problems.

That we invaded Iraq was pratical a historical inevitably. Unfortunately, we'd have done it sooner or later, under Bush or a later president. After 10 years of propaganda against Saddam and Iraq, the people were ready. The Clintonites broadly backed invasion; I suspect Bill would have invaded himself, if he'd been more daring.

Terrorism and WMD's were public reasons for invading Iraq. But I at least knew from closely following the two year run-up to war, beginning with the buildup of facilities in 2001 in the Persian Gulf, that the WMD's and Terrorism were the excuse not the motivation for the attack.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Green Apple Fossoway' post='1686215' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.50']And from what I've seen Obama didn't put nearly enough pressure on the House Dems to actually try to play ball with Republicans without hitting them in the balls with the bat first. I don't care if they're diffucult to deal with you should still at least try and work with them. Take the high road and make them look petty or childish if they're not willing to be reasonable. At least then Obama could actually show that he made every good faith effort to work with them instead of just saying he did. Words mean nothing in politics, you want to prove you mean what you say, show me actions that verify it.[/quote]

How do you "play ball" with people who don't agree with ANYTHING about how you want to fix the economy?

A super-over-simplified version of events to try and illustrate the idea:
Dems: "We're looking at just throwing money at the problem and nothing else."
GOP: "Tax cuts. That's it. If it's not just tax cuts we refuse to support it."
Bipartisanship: <Death Rattle>

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1686216' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.51']The failure of the last eight years is a failure of our entire political class. By focusing only on the single worst offender in that regard, you ignore the systemic problems.

That we invaded Iraq was pratical a historical inevitably. Unfortunately, we'd have done it sooner or later, under Bush or a later president. After 10 years of propaganda against Saddam and Iraq, the people were ready. The Clintonites broadly backed invasion; I suspect Bill would have invaded himself, if he'd been more daring.

Terrorism and WMD's were public reasons for invading Iraq. But I at least knew from closely following the two year run-up to war, beginning with the buildup of facilities in 2001 in the Persian Gulf, that the WMD's and Terrorism were the excuse not the motivation for the attack.[/quote]

No, this is mostly wrong but you have some of the right reasons {You're saying Bush II was going to invade Iraq from Day 1 and he was only looking for an excuse? That's very much correct}. If by people, you mean the American citizenry then I'd say they were prepped the most by by the events of 9/11/2001 and Bush's "Axis of Evil" propaganda added to the 2002 State of the Union Address; The ten year drumbeat for war was only heard by the "Warhawk Neocons" who gained Executive power and position in 2001, people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. You know, the guys who though Saddam was behind 9/11 on 9/11. Also, there were the promises that the experiment in Iraqi nation building would be easy such as the "greeted as Liberators" comment by Cheney.

Here's the bottom line: I honestly believe nobody in Congress really wanted a war in Iraq. I say this because they knew about the war in Afghanistan. It would take the utmost echelons of hubris for anyone in a military command to start a new war before finishing the old one off. I'll repeat my old comments in new words: The 2002 Iraqi Resolution was meant for "sabre rattling", nothing more.

[quote]In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Iraq had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)[/quote]
{sigh}

Yes, I'm focusing on the single worst offender because, as Bush said himself, he was the [b]decider[/b]. If Al Gore started this war, I'd give him the same treatment. Of course, the war would have run much better without Rumsfeld so there's that to consider, too. And he probably wouldn't have used the CIA to dupe Congress either.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Green Apple Fossoway' post='1686215' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.50']And from what I've seen Obama didn't put nearly enough pressure on the House Dems to actually try to play ball with Republicans without hitting them in the balls with the bat first. I don't care if they're diffucult to deal with you should still at least try and work with them. Take the high road and make them look petty or childish if they're not willing to be reasonable. At least then Obama could actually show that he made every good faith effort to work with them instead of just saying he did. Words mean nothing in politics, you want to prove you mean what you say, show me actions that verify it.[/quote]

Green Apple, Obama [i]did [/i]try, but the truth is the GOP wasn't going to cooperate at any price except, of course, the surrender of the administration. That was abundantly clear early on, so why should Obama antagonize congressional Democrats by insisting they try to placate people who simply will not be placated.

Fact is, most of the Republicans who are left in power are the hard-core conservatives in safe-seat districts who will not suffer at the ballot box for having opposed Barack Obama. They have little to gain from negotiating with the president, and nothing to lose, so their choice is clear. Obama should try to work with them, yes, but I don't see any reason why he should pressure his allies into making concessions that won't be reciprocated.