U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[lokisnow]

There actually is a lot of fascinating political news coming down the pike and it's all swallowed by the debate on assassination, but to recap:

New Bob Woodward book Obama's Wars comes out, Conservatives are outraged to find out Obama thinks America survived 9/11

Obama will be on the cover of Rolling Stone and has a kick ass, very open interview within. he says Fox News is destructive to America, conservatives unfortunately don't die en masse of apoplexy in response.

The CBO reported to congress that the Bush tax cuts will HURT the economy in the long run, no matter if they're extended for two years or ten, they're a net negative. - Ezra Klein's summary

Jim "douchebag" DeMint vows to put up procedural roadblocks to every single possible thing in the Senate in order to prevent the Senate functioning before the election

Christine O Donnell lied about going to Oxford, pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon is closing the gap in Connecticutt, Feingold may lose in wisconsin, but Rand may lose in Kentucky, Democrat prospects are up on the west coast, and the tea party is still crazy.

[alguien]

I thought the president had some pretty interesting things to say in his Rolling Stones article, which I quoted in the previous thread.

For me, I appreciated his admonishment to some of the Democratic base, especially those on the far left whose expectations were not as realistic as they should have been.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lockesnow,

conservates unfortunately don't die en masse of apoplexy in response

Fox news sucks but, good lord, that's uncalled for.

[lokisnow]

Lockesnow,

Fox news sucks but good lord that's uncalled for.

you're right, I was feeling snarky because I suspect that the comment on Fox News is the only thing that will ever be noted about the Rolling Stone Article and it will be transformed into "OBAMA WANTS TO TAKEOVER FoX NEWS AND SHUT IT DOWN AND TAKE YOUR GUSN!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

locksnow,

As though conservatives never complain about bias in the media.

[Tempra]

Sounds like Obama "acted stupidly."

[Andriy Czarchenko]

As though conservatives never complain about bias in the media.

On the contrary Scot, they ALWAYS complain about bias in the media. That´s their shtick. We´re attacked by the evil librul lame street media!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jose,

Sarcasm, sarcasm.

[Forderz!]

That's a really good interveiw... as long as you mentally adjust the values he gives for things like:

"I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill."

When clearly the bill is closer to 50/50. But that's par for course for an interview.

[Altherion]

That's a really good interveiw... as long as you mentally adjust the values he gives for things like:

...

When clearly the bill is closer to 50/50. But that's par for course for an interview.

No, I think in that case he is telling the truth. The bill is maybe 30% of what was promised to the public, but it's 90% of what the Democrats actually wanted. They are only slightly less aligned with Wall Street than the Republicans -- what most people would have thought of as reform isn't going to happen on their watch.

[lokisnow]

good point, there Altherion.

The Senate voted 53-47 in favor of moving forward a piece of tax legislation that eliminates a loop hole that gives businesses a huge tax bonanza for shipping jobs overseas and the legislation also enacts a tax benefit for companies that bring overseas jobs back to America in place of the pro-outsourcing tax credit.

Unfortunately, 53 is not more than 47, so it does not move forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/us/politics/29cong.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I think we need remedial maths in the Senate. ;) If I recall correctly, we'll need to start with First Grade Math and we'll have to bust out the alligator analogy. 53<47

[Ran]

From the Rolling Stone interview:

One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.

[Guest Raidne]

Trisk - To be fair, there is a good solid legal argument to be made that the Civil Rights Act, in telling private businesses who they can and can't hire, did, in fact, overstep the constitutional authority of the government. There is no other statute really like it.

Ran - Thanks for that. I needed that.

ETA: Oh, and what a great opening post to a US Politics thread!

[drawkcabi]

From the Rolling Stone interview:

I am so frustrated about what to do this election. Definitely not voting for the republican, but the democrat who is my current congressman, who I did vote for in 08, is a dick.

Even though MD is a blue state, I live in one of the most conservative counties. Kratovil, the dem congressman, is running on how he did not vote for the stimiulus and how he's more independent than anything. Now being independent isn't bad but this guy is turning this race into Repub vs. Repub instead of Repub vs Dem and I don't think I'm alone in facing this type of situation, I get the impression there are races like this all across the country.

I guess I'll still vote for him mainly as an FU to the asshole who hung him in effigy last summer. No matter what your feelings on the guy that kind of behavior is just complete total bottom of the barrel scumbaggery.

[Guest Raidne]

That's some nice rhetoric and everything, but this is the same guy who was complaining that the far left was whining, bitching, moaning, and Rahm called us fucking something-or-others.

Looks like he's backpedaling on those comments as fast as possible.

Uh, Coco? He states all that right up front in the same article. In context, at the end, he tells us to quit with the bitching and moaning, because this is what we're up against.

ETA: Also, he addresses Democrats and their pessimism and, I think, alludes to the exact comments you're talking about.

I was pretty happy with the article. The one thing I hold against him is that he said he wanted to be transformational like Reagan, and less like Bill Clinton, who he says didn't change the debate. If I were Bill I'd be kind of like "oh yeah? What've you got say about that now, huh?" I mean, in the article, his definition of success sounds just like Clinton's, it's just that his strategy is vastly different.

And that's fine with me, because the options on the table are moderate liberalism or Bush II(III?): now with more deregulation, war, and tax cuts for the wealthy or Barack Obama.

Anyway, I wonder if he hopes he can take that statement back. I think that's the thing that really pissed off Bill - as it should have. I hope he now sees how hard it is to do anything when the other party's desire to stay in power has become too dominant over their desire to govern (or perhaps it's really a problem that the sheer act of governing well has become incompatible with their core philosophical beliefs).

That all started with Bill. It didn't pop up out of nowhere under Obama - that happened to Bill. Yet he's acting like it all started with him, when he should be cribbing the successful parts of Clinton's playbook, and sincerely apologizing. I hope he has.

But, anyway, he's the candidate I have, and he said what I wanted him to say more than I thought he would. And I really hope is that he was telling the truth about carrying a checklist of campaign promises around in his pocket. I really hope that's true. I was also not unhappy with his answers about Guantanamo and DADT. He was candid. He doesn't have the political clout to end Guantanamo and get anything else done right now, but he has ended torture. It might not be a brave choice, but I think he was being perfectly honest there. And DADT needs a huge host of anti-harassment and sensitivity training in place before it can go by the wayside. Okay, that's true. God knows men get sexually assaulted by straight men in the military plenty enough already.

[Frog Eater]

I am so frustrated about what to do this election. Definitely not voting for the republican, but the democrat who is my current congressman, who I did vote for in 08, is a dick.

We have a similar problem here in SC. Jim Demint (Republican) is running against Alvin Greene (Democrat), a person who shouldn't be allowed running for coffee, let alone running for office. Jim Demint will win easily, mostly because democrats wont vote for Alvin Greene. I have no idea how he won the primary. I wont vote for Jim Demint, but I sure wont vote for Alvin Greene/

[Guest Raidne]

We have a similar problem here in SC. Jim Demint (Republican) is running against Alvin Greene (Democrat), a person who shouldn't be allowed running for coffee, let alone running for office. Jim Demint will win easily, mostly because democrats wont vote for Alvin Greene. I have no idea how he won the primary. I wont vote for Jim Demint, but I sure wont vote for Alvin Greene/

Honestly, given the whole Alvin Greene mess, has no viable third party candidate materialized? Really?

[Guest Raidne]

This is what I take issue with. I didn't scrutinize every line of the article, but he never mentioned that his party controlled all of Congress and that they blew it.

No, he totally talked about having the votes in the House and not the Senate, and how some people wanted him to play the game a little rougher and break the filibuster in the Senate, etc.

And he talked about amazed he was that Mitch McConnell was so able to keep everyone in line on just saying no no no to everything. This is probably much easier to do after the flogging they were just getting, and when everyone's afraid of not making it past their primary. I will agree that the degree of unified opposition is probably unprecedented in recent times.

And come on, Coco, reading the article, didn't you feel even a little bit bad for being so hard on the guy?

[alguien]

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Obama has either utterly failed to lead his party, or his party isn't actually a political party at all.

Are you talking about Guantamo specifically or leadership in general?

In the article, he does acknowledge that the Democractic party has a wide tent, so I think you second option has some validity to it.

I don't think he has utterly failed to lead his party but that they've had to deal with so many issues that they've been forced to prioritize.

Where people's frustration comes from is that the prioritization does not match up with their own, or that the list of priorities had to be tempered with political acumen.

ETA: where I do think he's faltered, as Raidne mentioned in her criticism of Obama's past comments about Clinton, is that he framed himself as changing the debate in a Lincoln-esque manner and instead has governed in a more practical manner. As Jon Stewart said, "I completely agree with the sentiment that he ran as a visionary and he has led as a functionary."

Of course, I'm not sure what other options he had, given the political climate...

[Frog Eater]

Honestly, given the whole Alvin Greene mess, has no viable third party candidate materialized? Really?

I went and researched it and yes, we do have a third party candidate running: http://clementsforsenate.com/

His website says he heats his home with a wood stove and scavanged wood and grows excellent tomatoes.

He is not airing any ads on TV or the radio and I did not even know he was running until now.