American Politics 16

[Annelise]

Granted, but by no means do I believe that the douchebaggery in this particular time and place is anywhere near equally distributed across the political spectrum. The right's signal to noise ratio has been getting worse for at least a generation.

I just mean calling them out, as they come up. If I implied that I think we should use a 1:1 ratio when posting criticisms or something by using the word egalitarian, I did not mean to. Perhaps equitable would be the better word.

[Annelise]

Obama is reportedly going to tape one-on-one interviews with the hosts of NBC’s “Meet the Press,†CBS’s “Face the Nation,†ABC’s “This Week,†CNN’s “State of the Union†and a program on Univision.

Fox News, which is considered more conservative-leaning than ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, confirmed Obama will not be interviewed on its network on Sunday. Wilson, who was reprimanded this week by the House for his outburst at Obama last week, said that by excluding Fox, the president was not being fair.

“If people are going to be on the Sunday talk shows, they should be on all of them,†Wilson said.

Wilson, incidentally, appeared on “Fox News Sunday†last week, but not on any of the other Sunday shows.

:lol:

[Annelise]

U.S. Shelves Nuclear-Missile Shield .

[Frog Eater]

It's just a matter of time before Wilson resigns (or voted out of) his seat and becomes a full time Fox News pannelist/douchebag

[Ser Aardvark]

You guys haven't been reading some of the editorials the last couple of days. Here's one by Joe Klien entitled "Yes It's Racism...But It's Complicated":

[i'm not talking] about classic white-black racism, though elements of that are present, to be sure. My sense of the teabaggers is more complicated: they are primarily working-class, largely rural and elderly white people. They are freaked by the economy. They are also freaked by the government spending--TARP, the stimulus package etc.--that was necessary to avoid a financial collapse. (I'm not sure Keynes is taught in very many American high schools.) But most of all, they are freaked by an amorphous feeling that they America they imagined they were living in--Sarah Palin's fantasy America--is a different place now, changing for the worse, overrun by furriners of all sorts: Latinos, South Asians, East Asians, homosexuals...to say nothing of liberated, uppity blacks.

Mary Mitchell's column seems to have been written by somebody who's been living on the moon. I'm sure there are more but, honestly, I have better things to do with my time (like watching my cat take a shit in the litter box)

But here is a question, and I'm not asking it to sound like a smart ass. We've been told that Wilson probably wouldn't have interrupted Obama if he were white. Fair enough. Kanye West (black) interrupted Taylor Swfit (white) at the VMAs to argue that Beyonce's (black) video deserved to win. Would Kanye West done that if Lil Kim or another female black artist won? Are we now judging racial opinions on the measure of civility we give people of another race?

Edit: I'm obviously not holding Kanye West to the same standard as Joe Wilson (one's a hip hop artist the other is a US Congressman, I think we know which we should hold to a higher standard) but the implication has been that Wilson's action reflected some sort of racial bias instead of political outrage. In that sense, the same question put to Wilson can easily be put to West.

[TrackerNeil]

Hardly. I compared the boards opposing reactions to virtually the same situation in principle. Not sure what is so baffling about that. Even Terra seemed to acknowledge that the difference is pretty much that the board collectively likes Jimmy Carter, and doesn't like Matt Drudge, based on past behavior.

What's baffling is that you think I compared Carter to Drudge as individuals, or whatever it is that caused you such a state of shock over a simple observation. The argument is internal to each thread. The principles are the same. In an unbiased discussion, the individuals don't matter.

No, that won't do. An unbiased discussion still takes note of context. Here's my context: Matt Drudge is a right-wing, Internet rumor-monger, while James Carter is a former US president. The latter has credibility the former lacks, and I therefore treat the things they say differently. It has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" Carter. (For the record, since Jimmy has yet to invite me for lunch, I can't say if I like him or not.)

Go ahead and create that precedent and the Republicans will shove every bill they can thru budget reconciliation once they gain a majority again.

Create the precedent? Republicans have used budget reconciliation to jam legislation past a filibuster (to enact tax cuts, I believe), and they'll do so once more when they regain the majority. Don't kid yourself that if the Democrats take the high road today the Republicans will remember that and return the courtesy tomorrow. That's a fairy tale, I am afraid.

[Week]

U.S. Shelves Nuclear-Missile Shield .

Voila, money for health care. :P

How much money was wasted on that project?? I remember writing about it angrily about 8 or 9 years ago when it clearly didn't work, yet still pissed off pretty much everyone else in the world (the Russians in particular).

[Annelise]

or get all the blame

Go ahead and create that precedent and the Republicans will shove every bill they can thru budget reconciliation once they gain a majority again.

Well, sure. They'll get all the blame or credit, regardless. That's a big reason why the GOP (or whoever the minority is in such a situation) has little political reason to compromise. I have to agree with Tracker on your latter point. Republicans already use reconciliation (see below) so threatening "Stop, or we'll do it to you next time we get a chance!" sounds like snickering to your buddies over your shoulder, "Let's see if they buy it!"

Media Matters for America has documented a pattern of journalists uncritically quoting Republican senators criticizing the decision to use reconciliation as overly partisan, without noting that those same senators -- including Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass legislation during the Bush administration, including tax cuts.

[..]

Alexander supported passage of 2003 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2003, Alexander voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. He subsequently voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 itself. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress, "would increase budget deficits ... by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period."

Alexander supported passage of 2005 tax cuts through reconciliation. In 2005, Alexander voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. Alexander subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself. The CBO estimated that the bill, as cleared by Congress and signed by the president, would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909020005

[Tempra]

here is a list of bills in which reconciliation has been used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliatio...gress)#Examples

I'm not sure how either side can make a big fuss over its use, it appears both sides have reguarly used reconciliation.

[Annelise]

I'm not sure how either side can make a big fuss over its use, it appears both sides have reguarly used reconciliation.

It is the shoe is on the other foot sort of fuss. The media should just have a giant "As if!" ready every time one pol or another busts out with the faux reconciliation outrage.

[DanteGabriel]

here is a list of bills in which reconciliation has been used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliatio...gress)#Examples

I'm not sure how either side can make a big fuss over its use, it appears both sides have reguarly used reconciliation.

Don't look at us liberals, AndyP's the one who got all hot and bothered about the Dems setting some kind of nuclear precedent.

[Annelise]

By the by, we should remember that reconciliation can't be used for just anything and it has limitations.

Each year, Congress passes a budget, but sometimes it has to enact a separate bill to raise or reroute funds in order to meet the budget's demands. That's the reconciliation bill--and it's so important that Senate rules exempt it from a filibuster. But they also prevent it from being a vessel for any old provision that the majority party wants enacted. The specifics of these limits (enshrined in the so-called Byrd rule) are complex, but the overarching rule of thumb is that provisions passed through this process must have a significant budgetary component (i.e. involve the moving around of federal money) and that the legislation should not, in the long run, increase the federal deficit. (A recent historical example: the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed via the reconciliation process. They survived the Byrd rule because they had a huge budgetary impact, but since they vastly increased the federal deficit, they sunsetted, and had to be renewed after five years.)

In a sense, I'd think fiscal conservatives and folks generally concerned about the deficit would feel somewhat comforted by passage via reconciliation because if, for example, healthcare reform did increase the deficit, it would have to be revisited.

[TrackerNeil]

Don't look at us liberals, AndyP's the one who got all hot and bothered about the Dems setting some kind of nuclear precedent.

And speaking of things nuclear, isn't it time Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the nuclear option that the GOP was fingering a few years ago? The one that would prevent filibusters of judicial nominees?

[TerraPrime]

Wilson might be a racist, but we have no way to know. It's a bit cheap to start making that accusation.

From that one comment, no.

But Max the Mediocre had provided additional information, including Wilson's remarks on the illegitimate daughter of Strom Thurmond (who's of mixed ethnic heritage), and you can see a pretty clear picture.

The nuance, of course, is that even if someone is racist, it doesn't mean that every action they take is motivated out of racism, but that's a different discussion.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Looks like Obama finally did something right.

PRAGUE – Czechs and Poles expressed rancor and relief Thursday that President Barack Obama had scrapped plans for a U.S. missile defense shield on their territories, reflecting deep divisions over a proposal that had also enraged Russia.

This was a bad idea from the get-go. Glad to see it scrapped.

[Shryke]

:agree:

"Let's spend billions to piss off Russia! That's a smart idea!"

[potsherds]

Looks like Obama finally did something right.

This was a bad idea from the get-go. Glad to see it scrapped.

Thank the gods. That was a moronic waste of money.

[Week]

So, how will the Right spin this one as a loss for Obama? He should have cut such a wasteful operation sooner? Weak against the Russians and Iranians that clearly want to fire nuclear missiles across the world (ignoring the fact that the program was not functional and would not have prevented a multiple warhead attack even with enormously successful innovations)? Or just drum up more support against death panels?

Some of the arguments against his policies (or really simply his views on policy at this point) are so devoid of any reason. People forget that Obama lives in the US, he has family in the US, and these nefarious plans of his to screw over the American people would be ruining lives that he has ties to as well. It really is just mind boggling.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Weekapug,

I don't know if this can be spun at all. If it was a money sink, it was a money sink. However, is this cancelled? Sounds to me like it's being rethought. Rather than a base for missles and a base for radar in two different countries isn't Obama's plan to shift to multiple sites for radar and multiple sites for missle batteries on land and sea?

From the linked article:

On Thursday, Obama announced he was shifting the plan from Eastern Europe to other locations. He and other administration officials said they have concluded that Iran's medium- and short-range missiles pose a greater threat and require more flexible technology.

...

Obama, however, said the United States will continue to work cooperatively with what he called "our close friends and allies." And Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed hope that his country could have a role in the redesigned U.S. system.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Sounds to me like it's being rethought. Rather than a base for missles and a base for radar in two different countries isn't Obama's plan to shift to multiple sites for radar and multiple sites for missle batteries on land and sea?

If we're going to waste money, I'd rather not waste that money pissing off the most powerful nation in the world (militarily) after our ourselves.