US Politics XXXVIII

[alguien]

Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be more aware of cameras and mics. :lol:

I think Jesse Jackson would certainly agree with you. :laugh:

[sologdin]

quite frankly, all the talk about condemning violence is a red herring that plenty of smart people seem more than willing to chase down.

the distinction between teabaggers and antiwar protesters has always been about the issue at stake. smart resistance strategy demands the use of both violent and non-violent measures; only fools dismiss violence, or the threat of violence, as part of protest--civil rights for blacks in the US were not simply won by means of peaceful protests. labor's struggle involved plenty of brawling with strikebreakers and later fascists in the streets.

i for one don't give a fuck if teabaggers are violent or not. they could light candles and sing hymns all day--they're still reactionary losers.

the objection that some antiwar protesters had the alleged bad taste to hang bush in effigy strikes me as a particularly weak argument in favor of the teabaggers. it's moral equivalence tu quoque bullshit, for one. second, though it has been interpreted as lynching, it is more likely a call for trial and execution (this is manifest on even the most fleeting, cursory review of anti-bush propaganda), under the rule of law. but no matter--because the third and main point of weakness for the antiwar-protesters-lynched-a-bush-doll thesis is that the antiwar protesters were protesting war. maybe some of them are revolutionary defeatists; maybe some of them are quakerish peaceniks, maybe others are pro-molsem-terrorist-wannabes, maybe others yet are anti-israelite neonazis--none of that makes any difference. the complaint that the antiwar protesters used force or threat of same is particularly weak when coming from the contrary position, i.e., pro-fucking-war, as the wars that have been subject to protest have killed several hundreds of thousands of people for no reason, in addition to destroying however much civilian infrastructure therein and distorting domestic US politics for a generation.

compared to the crimes of aggression at stake, a few dumbasses getting their ass beaten in the street or bush getting hanged in effigy is insignificant.

on the other hand, teabaggers deploying whatever means at their disposal to protest the extension of health insurance to those currently without is not subject to principled defense when that defense rises from a group that favors tax cuts for the wealthy, costs associated with wars of aggression, handouts for churches, bailouts for fucktard bankers (WE HAVE TO KEPE THE TALENT!!! eh? what "talent"? the talent that caused the crisis? WTF), and other waste consistent with rightwing thinking.

[Annelise]

Before the business of bashing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could begin in a field outside his hometown, the leaders of the Tea Party Express just had to get something off their chests.

They had to call out Jon Scott Ashjian, the upstart U.S. Senate candidate who’s running as the representative of the brand new Tea Party of Nevada -- and whose presence in the race threatens to drain votes from the Republican column and potentially save the embattled Reid.

“We are united in opposing the Tea Party of Nevada, which never has been and never will be affiliated with grassroots effort in Nevada,” said Debbie Landis of Anger is Brewing.

Republicans, Libertarians, independents, Democrats and even members of the ultra-right Independent American Party all got a chance to speak at Saturday’s much-hyped anti-Reid rally. But not the Tea Party candidate himself. Maybe going rogue only works for Alaskans. The irony spoke volumes: helping the Republican Party, it seems, is the top priority of the Tea Party Express.

[...]

She [Lowden] was reduced to asking for money, not votes, from the mostly out-of-state crowd. So much for the showdown: the two biggest threats to Harry Reid barely even got a chance to draw their guns.

http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/03/27/tea_party_searchlight_showdown

While she's a great one for fanning the flames, after the past week this is exactly the sort of statement that should be a no brainer. I read some local/state Tea party groups have said the same this week, as well.

“When we talk about fighting for our country, we’re not talking about violence,” Palin said. “Our vote is our arms.”

“The problems we face now are nothing that a good old-fashioned election can’t fix,” she said.

[Commodore]

Companies better get with the program:

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman's request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

On the one hand, they're obligated to report information to employees and shareholders. But if they report any negative consequences of Obamacare, they face congressional reprisal.

Waxman is doing this because they fear hundreds/thousands of other companies making similar announcements before November. I doubt the intimidation tactics will silence them from giving out business information to shareholders, but it might work.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm glad that Eric Cantor's pathetic bleating about a gun attack on his dumb ass was so much spun-up garbage, just like everything else that comes out of the Republican party these days. He has much in common with Ashley "a scary black man carved an Obama logo on my virginal white face" Todd from the 2008 election hysteria, with the exception that Cantor didn't have the gumption to do it to himself before he exploited horseshit for his craven political ends.

Why has the party of rugged individualism become a party of drama queens who will cry, whine, and swoon at the drop of a hat?

The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. -- Glenn Greenwald

[Annelise]

On the one hand, they're obligated to report information to employees and shareholders. But if they report any negative consequences of Obamacare, they face congressional reprisal.

Waxman is doing this because they fear hundreds/thousands of other companies making similar announcements before November. I doubt the intimidation tactics will silence them from giving out business information to shareholders, but it might work.

Well, I'm torn on this because I can see both sides as self serving. Most certainly the Admin will want to formulate a response for political reasons, at the least. OTOH, I was hardly impressed with the credit card companies' theatrics before and after that law was passed.

I suppose in all, I don't mind them having to hand over the documents. It doesn't stop companies from reporting the information or making those decisions. The more they protest over the documents, the more it makes me suspicious of them. If the numbers add up, they should be able defend their decisions easily and the admin will have to answer for it.

[Shryke]

Companies better get with the program:

On the one hand, they're obligated to report information to employees and shareholders. But if they report any negative consequences of Obamacare, they face congressional reprisal.

Waxman is doing this because they fear hundreds/thousands of other companies making similar announcements before November. I doubt the intimidation tactics will silence them from giving out business information to shareholders, but it might work.

Companies: "OMG, OBAMACARE will destroy us all!!!!!!!"

Waxman: "Ok. Show us why you think so."

I'm horrified by this turn of events I tell you!

[sologdin]

if they report any negative consequences of Obamacare, they face congressional reprisal.

the linked article does not support this proposition. (at least the linked news organ is honest about its rightwing preferences, however.)

i suspect they face contempt of congress charges if they don't turn over the information; that's pretty standard. i can't really see what the problem is.

[Shryke]

The article is HORRIBLY slanted.

[Commodore]

Companies: "OMG, OBAMACARE will destroy us all!!!!!!!"

Waxman: "Ok. Show us why you think so."

Engaging in perfectly legal, ethical business practices gets you hauled up before a congressional committee to defend yourself. Why are my tax dollars being used for that? Since when does a company have to justify anything they do to Henry Waxman?

It's not that AT&T is doing this that bothers Waxman, it's the fact that they publicized it. Plenty of companies are going to take a huge cost hit (Verizon/Caterpillar/John Deere have already announced massive cost increases), it's the ones that make news that will be intimidated by Congress to give up proprietary information.

[Maltaran]

Engaging in perfectly legal, ethical business practices gets you hauled up before a congressional committee to defend yourself.

I suspect Waxman may want proof that it is "legal, ethical business practices", and since he's chairman of the Commerce committee, I imagine that means he's entitled to demand it if he so desires.

I suspect, however, that it's political grandstanding by both sides. The companies are saying "Oh noez, Obamacare is bad! Look what it made us do!", and Waxman is saying "I disagree, so prove it".

[BloodRider]

Or, perhaps, one who decided that corporations have all the First Amendment rights of actual human beings.

Judge John Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller vs. Dover, once said that an activist judge is a judge who hands down a ruling you don't like.

Or perhaps they pick a case, listen to the facts - THEN TELL THE TWO GROUPS WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT - then to reapply using those definitions of the law. Then making a decision based off of that. If that is not the Supreme Court writing the law then I'm Fred McMurray. Activisim to a new degree.

Expect it to happen again with the Healthcare bill. Hopefully Scalea will retire before it get to them.

[The Progressive]

quite frankly, all the talk about condemning violence is a red herring that plenty of smart people seem more than willing to chase down.

To be fair, the only people who're vigorously chasing this red herring are teabagger apologists. Everyone is just having fun exposing their false equivalency fallacy.

Engaging in perfectly legal, ethical business practices gets you hauled up before a congressional committee to defend yourself.

I'm sure the former CEOs of the big investment banks also made the same fallacious argument, lol.

The fact is that the government is entirely within its power to ask for proof of compliance for any federal laws. If they aren't do that, they I really don't know what they're doing with my tax dollars.

[Lord of Rhinos]

So a bunch of companies say that Obamacare eliminates a tax credit that will cost them a lot of money. They write an open letter to congress telling them this. Its obvious that the intention is to get Congress to reinstate the tax credit. So Congress asks for proof that the companies losses are going to be as great as they say. Seems eminently reasonable to me.

[Mad Monkey]

It's fiscally irresponsible for Congress to think about how it spends money.

[Sariel]

It's fiscally irresponsible for Congress to think about how it spends money.

on very rare an occasions, I wish for the +1 option.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, not blame. Just expect to not be taken as legitimately. To some extent, you are who you associate with (I know Palin and McCain both agree with that). This may not be true, but perception becomes reality in these kind of things.

I think that's true, but what's your option if you're against the war? Never protest because of the fringies who inevitably will come out as well? For me personally, the answer to that is generally yes -- its why I don't participate myself. But people here seem to be going beyond simply "not taking them as legitimately," and ascribing moral judgements simply because they remain there.

The other side is always going to try to find angles to pick apart your cause. Don't give them the easy slamdunks. You need to be smarter as a movement if you want to enact the change you wish to see.

It's not my movement. The problem, though, is the same one the antiwar movement had. If you hold a march or rally, there. Is no legal way to control who shows up and participates. So again, your choice is either don't protest at all, or just hope the message gets through anyway.

Regardless, your example is of one war protestor with that offensive sign.

The reality was far more than just one. The radical left with the really nasty slogans/signs habitually participated in those rallies even more visibly than what has happened at Tea Parties. From what I've seen and read, racist signs are extremely uncommon. Plenty of stuff out there regarding some of the horrible chants, etc. Used by some of the more radical antiwar types.

ETA: Kinda ties into a point you made awhile back that you'd vote for an idiot Republican over an intelligent Democrat. That it's the lesser of two evils.

That wasn't the point at all. The point was that I think a candidates principles and political philosophy are. More important thamn brains.

Kinda like how siding with bigots and racists seems to be seen as the lesser of two evils against Public Option Liberals.

So I guess you really are a pure guilt by association kind of guy, huh?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So a bunch of companies say that Obamacare eliminates a tax credit that will cost them a lot of money. They write an open letter to congress telling them this. Its obvious that the intention is to get Congress to reinstate the tax credit. So Congress asks for proof that the companies losses are going to be as great as they say. Seems eminently reasonable to me.

Nothing at all wrong with him asking for it, but the companies should tell him to go fuck himself because the request clearly is for purely partisan purposes. They're not going to repeal or amend the legislation just because it's costing employers money.

Now if they refuse and then get subpoenaed, then it pretty clearly is a case of revenge for speaking out in opposition.

[sologdin]

clearly is for purely partisan purposes

clearly is a case of revenge for speaking out in opposition

dogmatic language proves nothing. if it's so "clear," it should be easy to prove.

[TheKassi]

The reality was far more than just one. The radical left with the really nasty slogans/signs habitually participated in those rallies even more visibly than what has happened at Tea Parties. From what I've seen and read, racist signs are extremely uncommon. Plenty of stuff out there regarding some of the horrible chants, etc. Used by some of the more radical antiwar types.

Again, you are equating some random person holding a sign during a demonstration on one side with the party's center on the other.

Simple Fact: Sarah Palin did a lot of race baiting during the two thousand eight election.

Simple Fact: Sarah Palin and many other mainstream GOP politicians invented and perpetuated the death panel lie specifically to inflame their constituency.

Simple Fact: Elected GOP representatives are screaming baby killer during televised DNC speeches.

Simple Fact: Forty five percent of republicans believe Obama wasn't born in America.

Simple Fact: Half of them think he is a secret Muslim.

Simple Fact: Forty percent are willing to compare him to Hitler.

Simple Fact: One in four republicans think he might be the anti-Christ.

Sorry, but when half of your group is calling someone a secret Muslim foreigner, it becomes really hard to argue that the crowd is angry about spending.

So I guess you really are a pure guilt by association kind of guy, huh?

Given that you are still throwing the name Bill Ayers around, you shouldn't level this criticism upon any other.