American Politics 18

[awesome possum]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6052800652.html

They accused Bush of pushing Christian-conservatism on Africa for embracing the Ugandan A.B.C. program. Bush's AIDS policy was routinely criticized on here and elsewhere as an example of the religious extremism of the administration.

Yes, criticizing Bush for giving help to AIDS and poverty stricken Africans only if they show they're good Christians and Obama wanting to give medical help to every American is exactly the same and should definitely both be demonized.

I'd ask if you really believe the tripe you spout off here but we all know the answer.

The fact is, in less than a year that Obama has been in office Republicans have been doing everything they can to shut him down and not allow him to do anything, even things that they completely agreed with while Bush was doing them. Too many Dems have not helped in the matter.

When Democrats came into power in 2006 they still allowed Bush and Republicans to push through legislation though they could have legitimately shut the government down. They would have been crucified for doing so by the same Republicans who are trying to do just that.

Those of us who lean to the left definitely see through blue-tinted glasses plenty of times. But to act as if you don't look through rose-colored glasses while calling us four-eyes is, well, it's very Republican.

[The Progressive]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6052800652.html

They accused Bush of pushing Christian-conservatism on Africa for embracing the Ugandan A.B.C. program. Bush's AIDS policy was routinely criticized on here and elsewhere as an example of the religious extremism of the administration.

And they're absolutely correct. That's just really stupid public health policy and is a giant waste of money .............. and were rightly criticized so.

Find something else more valid to whine about.

[Tempra]

Look, Tempra, it is hardly fair to link to an article from a site called "Marxist Thought Online" and say that it shows that regular liberals were "vicious" about Bush's AIDS policy. It would be like linking to a site called "Ku Klux Klan Online" and saying that's a good example of run of the mill conservatives being "vicious" about Obama or Clinton.

Look, Ormond, it is also hardly fair for posters on this board to attribute the actions of a few rogue pastor(s) (death threats), protesters (bringing guns to a rally), and general extremists to regular conservatives. As we know, this is done routinely.

ETA: vicious attacks rarely come from "regular" liberals and conservatives. They come from the fringe.

[Tempra]

I'm not really sure what your driving at here, Ormond. It's well reported that Bush's so called "aid" to Africa was contingent on promoting abstinence-only and anti-abortion approaches to medical care. Pretty disgusting, really.

Here are several mainstream media sources found with a quick google search:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28605888/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3887177.stm

Where in your sources does it say that the money is contingent on promoting abstinence-only approaches?

From the BBC source:

"The Bush Aids fund does however also make provision for the distribution of condoms.

While some liberal Democrats fought against the abstinence-only approach when the fund was approved by Congress last year, many were satisfied that the legislation acknowledged that condoms had a role to play in preventing disease.

In fact, according to research cited in the New York Times, the US will supply more than 550 million condoms to the developing world this year."

Although, the same article also makes a glaring mistake. It states that 1/3rd of the 15 billion is to promote abstinence programs. That is false. One third of 1/4 (7% according to the washington post article I cited earlier) of the total funding has been used to promote abstinence programs. That leaves 93% of the 15 billion to focus on other preventative/remedial measures.

[Tempra]

And they're absolutely correct. That's just really stupid public health policy and is a giant waste of money .............. and were rightly criticized so.

Find something else more valid to whine about.

The program was based off of the Ugandan ABC program which was extremely successful.

[Ormond]

I'm not really sure what your driving at here, Ormond. It's well reported that Bush's so called "aid" to Africa was contingent on promoting abstinence-only and anti-abortion approaches to medical care. Pretty disgusting, really.

Here are several mainstream media sources found with a quick google search:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28605888/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3887177.stm

Gosh, it feels weird to be agreeing with Tempra, but these links don't seem to me to be nearly as condemnatory as you think they are.

I don't agree with everything about the way US programs regarding AIDS in Africa were administered during the Bush administration. But I think what was done was more extensive and more effective than what we were doing before his time in office. And the last article you link to even quotes Bush himself as being in favor of condom use in Africa, even getting himself into trouble with the far right wing for his favorable comments on that.

It really seems very unfair to me to label this "so-called aid" just because it wasn't administered exactly the way you and I would like it to be. It may have been imperfect, but I don't think very many AIDS experts in Africa themselves think it wasn't a huge help. I think your general hatred of Bush is causing more of your disgust than the actual facts on this particular issue.

[Shryke]

Oh sweet false equivalency, where would Republicans be without you.

[TerraPrime]

Just watched PBS' Bill Moyers report last night, where he talked about the economic recovery as well as the health care reform. Sobering statistics on the second issue, where Max Baucus alone has received over 1.5 million in campaign contribution from insurance lobbying groups. Not to mention, one of his top Congressional Aides used to be the policy director of one of the largest health care groups, and his former top aide left the job to become a lobbyist for that same group. The entire sordid episode of politician bought and sold is shameful and revolting. The insurance lobby has about 48 lobbyists per Congress member. The amount of money they had spent on this is staggering. But it will be small investment if a bill actually does pass that forces every American citizen to purchase health insurance from one of these private insurance companies.

Disgraceful.

[lokisnow]

okay let's try some examples that are not knee jerk opposition:

Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980 after campaigning that trees caused pollution. one of his first targets was the clean air act. people do not have a right to clean air, according to reagan, but businesses do have a right to pollute however much they wanted if it was good for the bottom line. Reagan wanted to double the pollution cars could emit, wanted to double the pollution allowed in national parks, and wanted to relax controls on basically all industrial pollution. American industry eagerly jumped up and down in glee at getting rid of clean air and at the prospect of a couple more pennies increase in their stock value from getting rid of clean air. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat, chairman of the house energy and commerce committee was 100% behind Reagan in eliminating the national travesty of clean air.

Through a careful, thorough, and deep running opposition, the battle over eliminating clean air dragged on over a decade. Eventually it culminated in an amended law being signed by Bush the first that was stronger than the original clean air act. five years after new clean air amendments, more than half of US cities that had exceeded smog levels were no longer exceeding them. production of ozone depleted chemicals had dropped by more than 90%, power plant emissions that caused acid rain fell to half their 1980 levels (at a fraction of the cost predicted by industry, who said it would put them out of business, cost americans millions, and euthanize grandma). Carcinogenic emissions dropped by 25% and today's typical car is twenty times cleaner than a 1981 model, hybrids, forty-fifty times cleaner.

the battle over trying to eliminate clean air in america was hardly characterized by knee jerk opposition, and that's why it was an effective battle.

A similar example would be the decades long battle against the tobacco lobby and industry that eventually culminated in the industry admitting that nicotine is addictive and they were marketing to kids. Again, the quality and caliber of the opposition is fundamentally the opposite of knee jerk. Y

Or one could look at how the oversight comittee functioned during the democrat controlled congress but republican controlled presidency of hte Reagan and Bush presidencies, then compare it with how the oversight committee functioned during 92-94 and then from 94-2000, from 2000-2006 and from 2006-2008. I think you'd find that knee jerk opposition wasn't present in the oversight committee until 94, when it became the modus operandi and then knee jerk opposition mysteriously disappeared from the oversight committee in 2000, going from being one of the most active committees to one of the least active. mysterious, that. Yet when democrats took control of congress, and the oversight comittee, again in 2006, while they instituted basic oversight levels again, their use of the committee could not be characterized as knee jerk.

[Mad Monkey]

Maybe it might be easier to get things done if we had a Democratic Congress and a Republican President.

[awesome possum]

Just watched PBS' Bill Moyers report last night, where he talked about the economic recovery as well as the health care reform. Sobering statistics on the second issue, where Max Baucus alone has received over 1.5 million in campaign contribution from insurance lobbying groups. Not to mention, one of his top Congressional Aides used to be the policy director of one of the largest health care groups, and his former top aide left the job to become a lobbyist for that same group. The entire sordid episode of politician bought and sold is shameful and revolting. The insurance lobby has about 48 lobbyists per Congress member. The amount of money they had spent on this is staggering. But it will be small investment if a bill actually does pass that forces every American citizen to purchase health insurance from one of these private insurance companies.

Disgraceful.

It's revolting, is what it is. Facts like this should be in huge bold letters on the front pages of every newspaper in the United States. Instead you find out about them on little known websites or on programs where the only people who actually watch it are part of the small minority in this country interested in real knowledge.

[aeu]

The mods were correct to delete my post. But let me clarify that I wasn't intending to encourage others to flame, although looking back I see that's exactly what I was doing. So let me state that no one should flame that blog or any other. I recommend, however, that everyone read the article that occasioned the whole thing; it's interesting.

Can we at least get a link to the blog and the article?

[Maltaran]

Obama will repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Artas]

Good!! And about damn time, too.

ETA: Some of the comments on the Fox News website with regard to this topic are very amusing. :lol:

"Don't ask, don't tell is just perfect. Keep it to your self, I don't want to know who your doing. If don't ask don't tell was applied to the rest of America we wouldn't be in half the degenerative mess we are in now."

[awesome possum]

It's a smart move politically for Obama. Do something to please a base that is getting increasingly dissatisfied while showing how intolerant the other side tends to be.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

In his speech, Mr Obama did call on Congress to repeal the act and he also called for a law that would extend benefits to domestic partners.

I hope he's serious about the latter.

[Tempra]

It's a smart move politically for Obama. Do something to please a base that is getting increasingly dissatisfied while showing how intolerant the other side tends to be.

Except the base is rather small and those against the move are likely far higher in numbers. It will be interesting to see when and how he goes about repealing DODT and DOMA. As we know, his support has dropped and we are starting to get into midterm election season. The last thing Obama needs is to lose members in Congress. He hasn't exactly been effective with 59(!) senators on his side.

[TerraPrime]

Yeah, I think he should have waited for DADT until 2012 or later. Pushing UHC through seems more important, but I know I speak from the comfort of not being adversely affected by DADT on a personal level.

Though, I was curios about the current of politics when I saw the Secretary for the Navy (forgot his formal title) was on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart asked him about DADT, and his answer was "we'll do whatever the Congress tells us to do." I found that answer very peculiar, coming from a top brass, but thought that it was just that person being more open-minded than what we usually expect from the Pentagon. But in retrospect, that seems like a trial balloon.

Re: Tempra

Except the base is rather small and those against the move are likely far higher in numbers.

I think the trend has shifted since 1992.

Small Quinnipec 2009 poll showing almost half support repelling DADT

US News article in 2009 citing a Gallop poll of 69% supporting the repeal.

ABC 2008 poll showing almost 75% support repelling DADT

[Tempra]

Color me surprised.

[TerraPrime]

Color me surprised.

Me too, actually. I didn't think it would be closer than 60-40 (want DADT vs don't want DADT) split, but it's more like 40-60 split, it seems.

But as with UHC, the voters' wishes, I suspect, will take a back seat to what Congress wants. In 1992, it really was Nunn and a few other Senators who kaboshed the whole thing, with aids from the Pentagon. I wonder which Democratic Senator will take up the mantle this time, now that Nunn is gone?