US POLITICS FALL 2011: Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan

Symmetry.

good work.

this thread is about a new Eminem single, right

Someone should've told Cain "That's funny, like you calling that shit pizza."

No matter the season, some Dems know how to shoot themselves in the feet. This is regarding new details on last week's stupid proposal:

The new deficit-reduction plan from a majority of Democrats on the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “supercommittee”) marks a dramatic departure from traditional Democratic positions — and actually stands well to the right of plans by the co-chairs of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and the Senate’s “Gang of Six,” and even further to the right of the plan by the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici commission.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3605

neo-poli-poli-poli-tana-tana

I almost called the thread: "What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party?"

while in foreign policy:

the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Great. The US wants to associate with the the Gulf Cooperation Council, best known for going into Bahrain and crushing the protests there.

really, "some" Dems, curmudgeon? And they're not shooting themselves in the feet, they're shooting us in the head.

xxpost -- Maintaining oligarchy minus theocracy.

Today's NYT story gives the lie to us "leaving" Iraq. And no one mentions the private contractors who remain.

thx for the link

And no one mentions the private contractors who remain.

Of course not. That wouldn't be patriotic. Everyone who is there does so out of the goodness of their hearts.

same as in uganda

You're welcome!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?ref=middleeast

found it already, thx

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

How do these two sentences jibe? As presented in the article, it looks like the military is trying to convince the administration to leave troops in the area, not that the administration is looking to leave troops in the area, which seems to be a fairly important semantic difference.

A week or so ago there was talk that the military wanted to maintain a presence in Iraq but ONLY if troops were granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq

The issue of immunity is a major one for both sides. U.S. officials have insisted that they can't agree to leave American troops in Iraq unless they're protected from prosecution by Iraqi authorities

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq-says-it-s-asked-for-5-000-u-s-trainers-awaits-reply-1.157516

That's the problem – they don't. Then there's this: "That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran."

The administration's already thinking about a "military confrontation with Iran."

xpost to Dan

it would be criminally irresponsible for the administration NOT to think of a "military confrontation with Iran"

I almost called the thread: "What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party?"

― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, October 31, 2011 11:29 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

this would've been better, since uzbeki-beki-beki BS should be in the 2012 GOP thread tbh

not like there's much separation at this point

x-post re Iran

Did you find their nukes Dan?

Obama could say no to the military but he hasn't

There's a difference between thinking about what might happen if Iran got feisty and feeding the perception, as this story does, that we're going to war with Iran soon.

I did not get the impression from that story that we are going to war with Iran soon.

Or rather, I did not get the impression from that story that the administration is looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran, would be the more accurate way of putting it.

Greenwald on that article:

American officials can announce with a straight face: we’re interfering further in this region in order to prevent “outside interference” in this region (from nations that are actually in that region). I don’t expect Hillary Clinton to point any of that out, but perhaps the New York Times might, rather than just publishing these laughable official decrees without comment.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/middle_east_propaganda_101/singleton/

When you've got Iran encircled by U.S. forces, provocation is a trigger away.

Let's not forget the great love between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

the US is not eager to go to war with Iran, come on now

also lol at the implication that there are any circumstances under which we would not have troops in the middle east. once the US sends the military somewhere they STAY THERE. we've been there since Gulf War I and will be there indefinitely in some capacity.

US out of South Korea amirite

also lol at the implication that there are any circumstances under which we would not have troops in the middle east. once the US sends the military somewhere they STAY THERE.

No one disputes this. But the consequence is that the U.S. presence is a provocation, as the families of suicide bombers have said again and again.

we've been there since Gulf War I and will be there indefinitely in some capacity.

As Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney as Doctor No said, "We're not leaving."

obama team's early thoughts about 2012 elections.

"What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party?"

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

"petition to actually take these petitions seriously"

"What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party?"

lol, who is that?

From the digby post I posted last week.

ah. well then.

http://www.joesherlock.com/09-V-Kod.gif

can a mod correct the spelling of "ubekibekibekistanstan"

So I wrote to my moderate Democrat Virginia Senators urging them to support the Jobs bill and I got a response from Jim Webb that included this:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the American Jobs Act and federal government spending. I appreciate your taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Out of respect for the principles of free and open debate, on October 12, 2011, I voted to proceed to debate on the American Jobs Act. I do not, however, support final passage of the bill in its current form. As I have long-emphasized, I believe taxes should not be raised on wages or ordinary income. This legislation, if passed, should be paid for by other means such as raising capital gains or ending costly subsidies and tax loopholes. The effort to begin debating the bill was defeated by a filibuster, 50-49.

So let me get this straight--Webb opposes higher income taxes for millionaires but he supports raising capital gains taxes and ending subsidies and loopholes. Oy veh.

Inconsistency you can believe in!

CYA

can a mod correct the spelling of "ubekibekibekistanstan"

― max, Monday, October 31, 2011 5:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is really annoying me every time i see the title

We are easily annoyed, eh?

lol how long have you been here

I propose that more z's be added to the thread title

you wanna bumble with the bee, huh

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

im just saying, lets at LEAST get the thread title right

I'm fucking going ham on anyone who suggests a title change again.

I suggest we edit the first post to include the word "Gazbbnezb"

Forgive my ignorance but what is 'going ham on'?

i think its a good title i just think its stupid to spell it wrong

http://gamentrain.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/jwoww-going-ham-590x317.jpg

Alfred is going to give a cuban sandwich to anybody who changes the thread title

forgive my ignorance but what does cuban sandwich mean

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/mark_cuban/mark_cuban_01.jpg

Is that where you make a paste out of Mark Cuban and put it between two other Mark Cubans, 'cause that's horrifying!

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs472.ash1/25898_377866070853_377664290853_3703921_2122254_n.jpg

Hot Cuban sandwich.

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-does-ham-mean-in-rap-songs

chacha eh

http://www.100bestrapsongs.com/pill-trap-going-ham/

I went to Urban Dictionary and found this interesting definition:

6. Going Ham 59 up, 342 down
A slang term meaning there isnt any girls in the club so you have to go home and maturbate instead.
Tony: Damn this place is kinda dead man
Mateen: Thats why im Going HAM brotha.

A slang term meaning there isnt any girls in the club so you have to go home and maturbate instead.

59 up

makes sense

Maturbate? Mateen?

Uzbeki-zbeki-zbeki-zbeki-'zkit-'zkit

I thought Shakey said the supercommittee couldn't cut the things Boehner wants them to cut (and that the Dems would never do so, not that this says they will do so):

Boehner encouraged the committee to hone in on working to reform entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to meet the committee’s mandate to drop $1.5 trillion from the deficit in the next decade.

“Everyone knows we can’t solve the debt crisis without making structural changes to our entitlement programs. You know it. I know it. President Obama knows it,” Boehner said. “If we don’t make those changes, the programs won’t be there for your generation when you need them. Everyone understands this, and the fact of the matter is, strengthening these programs will be good for our economy. Nothing – nothing – would send a more reassuring message to the markets than taking bipartisan steps to fix the structural problems in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/speaker-boehner-pushes-for-common-ground-in-louisville/

OK, let's up the cap on the Social Security payroll tax and fund it through taking more income from the rich, how about that Boehner, sound good?

“Absolutely, there’s huge income inequality, and it started right here in Washington,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas). “The way we fix that is getting the government out of the way of the private sector so we can put these people to work.”

Income gap slips into GOP talk
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67189.html

Boehner encouraged the committee to hone in on working to reform entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to meet the committee’s mandate to drop $1.5 trillion from the deficit in the next decade.

what they can recommend re: SS, Medicare and Medicaid is extremely limited afaict

iow this is just Boehner grandstanding/repeating talking points. does not reflect legislative reality.

But the reality is also that a majority of the Dems on the supercommittee already offered a horrible grand bargain that was mentioned upthread. I hope you're right that they won't follow through with something even worse.

Via Digby I see what my other Virginia so-called Democratic senator, Mark Warner, has been up to:

can hardly believe that gazillionaire Mayor Bloomberg would have the nerve to host an exclusive dinner for the financial, corporate and political elite to persuade them to slash the social safety net. It's almost beyond belief. But he did.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will host an intimate dinner at Gracie Mansion on Sunday night that brings together a bipartisan group of senators, Xerox chief executive Ursula Burns and other business and labor leaders to discuss how to pave the way for the Super Committee to "go big" and cut $4 trillion in federal spending, according to a source familiar with the dinner.

The Washington contingent includes Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Warner and Republican Sens. Bob Corker, and Saxby Chambliss, among others. The meeting will be a much smaller, more strategic affair -- 10 to 20 people -- than a similar dinner Warner threw at his home in September, which had a guest list of 60.

Sunday's dinner is another in a series of conversations that lawmakers, policy makers and business and labor leaders have been having since last summer to make a business case for big cuts in spending. A number of senators and business groups, including the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, having been urging the Super Committee to cut more than the $1.5 trillion it is charged with finding.

Webb's position of wanting to change capital gains rates and close loopholes before raising income tax rates on upper earners doesn't strike me as being that outlandish. I tend to think he's a good egg.

he had a fantastic criminal justice bill put together that the republicans killed

But the reality is also that a majority of the Dems on the supercommittee already offered a horrible grand bargain that was mentioned upthread. I

which was also grandstanding. they leaked that to the press to provide political cover for themselves ("look at us, hard at work! compromisin'!") and apply pressure to the GOP ("look at these guys! obstructing stuff! being unreasonable!") the proposal put forth was not a serious proposal that had any chance of passing, and the knew it.

I should clarify what I said upthread about Medicare/Medicaid/SS - those things are shielded from the triggered cuts if the supercommittee doesn't deliver. I think the supercommittee can recommend restructuring etc. but I'm not sure what the limits on that are. But if the Dems on the supercommittee don't get anything in return for that concession (ie, tax increases) then why bother, might as well let the supercommittee fail and let the GOP take the heat for being do-nothing assholes, who chose to slash the defense budget by 50% rather than raise taxes.

which was also grandstanding. they leaked that to the press to provide political cover for themselves ("look at us, hard at work! compromisin'!") and apply pressure to the GOP ("look at these guys! obstructing stuff! being unreasonable!") the proposal put forth was not a serious proposal that had any chance of passing, and the knew it.

But just like the Obama "grand bargain" proposal, it also hurts Dems in the upcoming campaign when Republicans can mention these items and say "you guys are willing to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security" too.

no one's gonna mention that shit, it's not to the GOP's advantage. It's to the GOP's advantage to paint the Dems as overspending, big govm't scourge. Pointing out the contrary - even if it's the truth - is not in their interest.

I think the supercommittee can recommend restructuring etc. but I'm not sure what the limits on that are. But if the Dems on the supercommittee don't get anything in return for that concession (ie, tax increases) then why bother,

You are being logical and I am not sure the Dems on that group will be.

Shakey's right about this being shadowplay: the two parties get what they want, and the Beltway media can treat one of its favorite words ("supercommittee") into Viagra.

treat = turn

what do the Dems gain by sacrificing their sacred cows and getting nothing in return. it will just get them voted out of office. Rule #1 of politics = self-preservation.

xp

shakey pretty much otm

that's not to say that whatever we end up with won't still completely suck

oh things are gonna suck allright

“Everyone knows we can’t solve the debt crisis without making structural changes to our entitlement programs. You know it. I know it. President Obama knows it,” Boehner said.

best part here is that, a few months ago, people would hear this and say, "yeah, this is an urgent problem," and now people here this and say, "GTFO john boehner."

wait who is saying that?

the Beltway class that Daniel watches.

i don't even own a television. i get my news via carrier pigeon and smoke-signals.

http://cdn9.wn.com/pd/ea/79/4fd761ce0d6782e35cdfaa2e1add_grande.jpg

just theatre? what's the fastest this could happen under different circumstances?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment_n_1069596.html

it'll probably pass as soon as the balanced-budget amendment does, unfortunately

hey, the 2012 presidential "debates" have been scheduled!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/01/calendar-is-set-for-fall-2012-presidential-debates/

And of course, the Duopoly Commission that runs them has ordered exactly two chairs.

no constitutional amendment about anything is going to pass for the foreseeable future

Obama's administration still coddling his beloved fat cats:

AFTER months of back and forth, a deal that is supposed to punish large financial institutions for foreclosure misconduct may be nigh.

While the exact terms remain under wraps, some aspects of this agreement — between banks on one side, and the federal government and a raft of state attorneys general on the other — are coming into focus.

Things could change, of course, and the deal could go by the boards. But here’s the state of play, according to people who have been briefed on the negotiations but were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

Cutting to the chase: if you thought this was the deal that would hold banks accountable for filing phony documents in courts, foreclosing without showing they had the legal right to do so and generally running roughshod over anyone who opposed them, you are likely to be disappointed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/a-foreclosure-settlement-that-wouldnt-sting.html

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2408/pox-all-who-insist-super-committee-has-no-choice-succeed

i need to give this a better read, but, in short: forget about the super committee.

lol thought that was some weird Pick Only 10 thing

x-post-oh that's the blogpost from a Roll Call inside Capitol Hill writer who seems to be venturing outside his bubble inhabited by "serious" people

calling stan collender a "roll call writer" isn't quite exact

An encouraging sign that some Republicans may still be members of the "reality-based" community:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/house-republicans-back-higher-tax-revenue-in-supercommittee-plan.html

interesting! 100 ain't enough toh

though

lol I thought for a split second you were making a really orthogonal Wheel of Time reference

It's kind of a good news and bad news thing though. 40 House Republicans are backing some tax revenue increases, but they also want them only as part of plan that emphasizes large cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

100 taxes bloom

That's 40 Republicans and 60 Dems making 100. But I'm with Digby on this--- this is token tax increases used to justify unnecessary entitlement cuts. Alan "Let's slash entitlements" Simpson supports this 100 signature letter

I'm hoping you folks are right and that the supercommittee fails to agree to anything. Naturally, folks like Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles get to talk to them and urge entitlement cuts, while no one talks to them about alternatives like-- rolling back Bush tax cuts, raising capital gains tax rates back up, increasing the Social Security payroll cap...

the Beltway media is afraid of reporting that comity exists in DC.

Ha. This is the kind of comity they want--"moderates" from both parties agreeing to a token liberal tax increase and huge cuts for the 99%

"Why, it's the only two sides there are, and they agree!"

This is amazing

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/boehner-grover-who.php?ref=fpa

A simple yes or no would have sufficed, but when House Speaker John Boehner was asked whether anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist was a positive influence on his caucus, he feigned ignorance.

“It’s not often I’m asked about some random person in America,” he said.

HAHA, Grover who now??

"I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more specific."

BOEHNER: Our focus here is on jobs. We're doing everything I can to get our economy going, to get people back to work. It's not often I'm asked about some random person.

RUSSERT: To your conference, is Grover Norquist a random person?

BOEHNER: Listen, our focus is on creating jobs, not talking about somebody's personality.

RUSSERT: But what he stands for, is that a positive influence on your conference?

BOEHNER: What he stands for?

RUSSERT: Yes, his no tax hikes under any circumstances pledge. Is that positive for your conference?

BOEHNER: Our conference is opposed to tax hikes because we believe that tax hikes will hurt our economy and put Americans out of work.

depends on what your definition of 'grover norquist' is

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061101012860/muppet/images/c/c1/Supergrover.jpg

"It's just that I know so MANY Grovers... uh... Grover Washington, he was good, you like soul jazz?"

champagne supergrova

XD

I did not have sexual relations with Grover Norquist

i don't know...i had dinner with donald trump the other day

lolololol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/elizabeth-warren-heckler_n_1073755.html#s361241&title=Chats_With_HuffPost

^ tea party guy calls elizabeth warren a "socialist whore" for being the "intellectual founder" of #OWS

prob the wrong thread for this but warren is super attractive for her age

He then attempted to storm out through a side door. Finding it locked, he retreated out the back of the VFW hall instead.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnii9iezIv1qa1crjo1_400.jpg

Warren took the challenge in stride. "So, we are here to do work, and I think we have a reminder that we have a lot of work to do," she said as the heckler struggled with the door.

"He's very slowly getting away!"

<3

Haha, goole, when I got to that sentence I loled IRL.

See also

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9pmfpOkbr1qdoghio1_400.gif

The assault stuck with Warren, and she continued to think about it throughout the night. Hours later, she she said she wasn't upset with the man himself, but rather with those who attempt to channel his anger in a malevolent direction. "I was thinking more about the heckler. I'm not angry with him, but he didn't come up with the idea that his biggest problem was Occupy Wall Street. There's someone else pre-packaging that poison -- and that's who makes me angry," she said.

Warren is a fantastic person.

yeah seriously

"america: you've met our drones, now meet our people"

jon stewart's suggestion for US's motto to replace "in god we trust"

"America: come for the pie, stay for the housecleaning jobs."

we would rather meet the drones

yay

advertising war in Ohio re bargaining rights referendum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/national-right-wing-groups-pouring-huge-money-into-ohio-in-final-stretch/2011/03/03/gIQA8SvxiM_blog.html

2.2 million conservative ads , 1.8 mill union

Andy Kroll reports that in addition to TV ads, mailers from conservative groups are blanketing the state, including ones that use debunked statistics to portray public workers as greedy and overpaid.

we would rather meet the drones

<3

this is gonna pass, isn't it

It very well might. It's interesting that I haven't seen a single poll indicating which way it might go.

jesus christ

I can't see it holding up in court, really but man, I dunno

i would say there's a very good chance of it passing. but anecdotally i will also note that several of my fb "friends" from high school who i would assumed are very conservative and at the very least nominally pro-life are posting updates attacking it... and the ensuing comments (of which there are many) are very critical as well. lots of these people are parents of little girls now so that seems to have something to do with the outrage.

yeah i was kind of hopeful when Haley Barbour made some mealymouthed objections to it, but oh well

this fuckin guy

I can't see it holding up in court, really but man, I dunno

the initiative is controversial even among hardcore right-to-lifers because if it's challenged and defeated that would have the effect of strengthening Roe

GOP freaking out about triggered defense cuts

and guess why:
Republicans have expressed more alarm about possible across-the-board cuts in Pentagon spending than Democrats have voiced about cuts in domestic programs that would also occur. Many safety-net programs for low-income people, including Medicaid and food stamps, would be exempt from such automatic cuts. And Medicare payments to health care providers could not be reduced more than 2 percent.

There is no douobt that Krauthammer was fed that entire column. He's a lapdog who'll front anything that serves the interests of his masters. At this point in his career he doesn't even have to think his own thoughts or write his own stuff; he's more like a sewer pipe than a columnist.

honestly wouldn't be surprised if the previous debt-ceiling deal just gets undone and we're just back to regular ol' deficit spending lol

xp

What's really pissing me off is the total silence from my conservative relatives who work in the medical field. If they're against 26, they're not admitting it.

no mention from the good doctor about what caused the new SOFA talks to founder...

Was the "immunity" thing the facotr that caused the SOFA talks in Iraq to fail? Or was that something else? Because Dr. Krauthammer mentions the SOFA talks early in the piece, without as you say explaining why the foundered but later in the piece he says:

The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem and overcame it.

I don't know the specifics well enough, but that sentence sounds fishy to me.

factor

oh i guess he does mention it then!

arack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with U.S. backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.

this guy should write G.I. Joe scripts.

Krauthmmer's G.I. Joe version of the surge neglects to mention that as Peter Bergen said

Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

http://politicalmpressions.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/money-not-surge/

Not that we have to disprove each sentence in a Krauthammer column

I can't see it holding up in court, really but man, I dunno

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, November 4, 2011 2:06 PM (1 hour ago)

it'll depend on how the law is worded, and unfortunately they'll probably be smart enough to make the implications severable. anything outlawing abortion will be vacated before it can even take effect, but the other implications are pretty scary, haven't read anything really about how it'll play out

Mississippi "personhood" vote is Tuesday. Slate readers ask:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/mississippi_s_anti_abortion_amendment_could_i_claim_my_frozen_em.html

The Ohio referendum on Governor Kasich's anti-union law is tomorrow also

i was part of a planned parenthood phone bank thingy to plead with mississippians to vote against the personhood initiative last week. anecdotally i got a lot of middle-aged to older ladies being like, "well, I don't support abortion, but I don't know about this initiative..." apparently haley barbour has been calling registered voters urging them to vote against it, too, because he got in some hot water when people pointed out the anti-birth control and anti-fertility treatment provisions. so i have some hope. it is a totally insane initiative.

Barbour already voted for it! He voted absentee last week.

i did get one anti-choice true believer who ferreted out that i was not from mississippi and she was like, well i hope if an initiative like this ever comes to new york state, you vote for it. life is precious! she was sweet as pie about it.

xp that's so weird! one of the people i talked to said that haley barbour had robo-called them saying it wasn't a good idea to vote for it

i guess the lives of women with ectopic pregnancies are not precious to that lady btw

I wouldn't be surprised if the robocall came from anti-26 folks who recorded his MSNBC interview last week where he talked about his misgivings. He took so much shit for admitting that Prop-26 was flawed that he chimed in the next day (Thursday) saying he'd already voted for it, flaws and all.

ohhh i see.

some of the questions on that Slate article are great, I particularly like the carpool lane one

a couple of the women i talked to were like, i already voted against it absentee and am very strongly against it and i think i startled them with my effusive response.

9. Would I be required to turn my birth control pills over to the state police upon crossing the Mississippi state line?

don't give them any ideas, guys!

I hope it fails, I hope it fails, I hope it fails. But passage wouldn't surprise me tbh. Also on the ballot: making it illegal for the state to use eminent domain to take land for private economic projects, and a "let's bring back Jim Crow" voter ID proposition.

:(

Barbour tried to play games with this I see by raising questions about that initiative but then voting for it

Finally, the first polling I've seen on Prop 26 -- a dead heat. 46% to 45% in favor.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MS_1106925.pdf

12. If I have a life-threatening pregnancy, can I get an abortion on the grounds of self-defense? Or would the police content themselves with investigating my subsequent painful death as a murder-suicide?

kind of lol but sometimes real

if a mother dies in childbirth will the fetus be charged with murder

and given the death penalty

as a full person with rights that fetus should be held accountable before the law

will a pregnant woman have to pay for two airline seats

can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax return

cuz wtf with all these fetuses that don't pay their taxes, THEY ARE THE 47%

can I meet a fetus on OKCupid?

argh

will a pregnant woman have to pay for two airline seats

― ASPIE Rocky (dayo), Monday, November 7, 2011 4:30 PM (1 hour ago)

"babe in guts" until birth, then "babe in arms" until 2nd birthday.

otoh, will birthdays be redefined?

If this law passes, women carrying male fetuses will ipso facto bring about the conservative's nightmare: co-ed bathrooms.

Someone please tell Chris Matthews that no one is interested in his necrophiliac drivel about JFK.

If this law passes, women carrying male fetuses will ipso facto bring about the conservative's nightmare: co-ed bathrooms.

hahaHAAAAA, my bro-in-law will shit a unisex brick at that one. We had the weirdest debate I've ever had with anyone, on that topic. It boiled down to the fact that he perceives some sort of weird subconscious connection between defecation and sex, and at that point I was able to say "dude, you're too weird to debate" and back away.

will a pregnant woman have to pay for two airline seats

don't be worried! as i've recently learned, you don't have to pay for a child's seat on an airline until they're two

phew *impregnates a few women*

actually... that should be... impersonate

*impersonates a few women*

Congrats dayo!

Breitbart with the important questions: is the accuser a Democrat? (A: evidently not.)

...dammit, that ought to have been on the NRO thread, sorry

Trying to pin the Cain accusations on the Democrats is such a laughable O.J.-looking-for-the-real-killer ruse. The last thing in the world any Democrat would want is to hasten Cain's departure.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7481/cnns.gif

don't worry she cool

now we move into the ugly second phase of these things -- they can move from questioning the existence of sexual harassment, to actively hating a specific woman

(her attendance at a rally where herman cain was speaking is apparently proof the whole thing is made up, because what victim would act like that?!?!)

Sanmon 98p · 15 hours ago

Such a pure white Angel. So did she go down on him or not. Monica and Bill want to know if she saved the dress with stains.

renewing the annual call for Tom to delete humanity

tbh (and likely this is terrible) I don't think making unwanted, aggressive sexual advances disqualifies Cain from being President

what disqualifies him from being President is a fundamental lack of knowledge; I don't care how successful a businessman you are, I am not voting for you if part of your platform includes statements in the vein of "we must keep China from developing nukes"

having said that, I am enjoying watching all of the Republicans implode while Romney's rictus grin looms overhead and Huntsman jumps up and down on the sidelines yelling "WHY IS NOT BEING TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY A LIABILITY"

Romney's rictus grin looms overhead

That's a line from "The Waste Land 2.0" I believe.

watching implosive Republicans while
Romney's rictus grin looms overhead
the Huntsman jumps up and down yelling

Cain's failure to respond to the bad math of 9-9-9 isn't exactly encouraging, either.

At my back I always hear
Romney'ss rictus grin laughing through bitter tears
Shanti Shanti Shanti

BREAKING NEWS—11:05 AM: DC CIRCUIT COURT UPHOLDS AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

what disqualifies him from being President is a fundamental lack of knowledge

Not that I expect Cain to become president, but Reagan had some shortcomings in this area! One can't underestimate the chances of ignorant people to win elections.

it's democracy in action

One can't underestimate the chances of ignorant people to win elections.

http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/23/1423/9780030451423.jpg

Back from voting. Good turnout, had to wait in line for the first time ever...but it was a long ballot and there were fewer voting machines than there were at the primary.

x-post -Wow, Reagan appointee Silberman wrote the DC Circuit opinion and Joining Silberman’s opinion, and writing separately, was Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee. The lone dissenter: Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote separately to explain that the court didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.

from the wsj

good luck Missippi

i feel like i should get in my mom's ear about this, but i'm afraid of the fallout. also not looking forward to Thanksgiving in Batesville if this discussion rears its ugly head

Does this mean I have to vote for Jon Huntsman now?

That's old news, I'm waiting for him to weigh in on this "indie adult contemporary" issue.

Next step will be Rush L. grousing about how not liking Wilco is unAmerican...

Chief of Staff Bill Daley is giving up day-to-day operations at the White House, with Pete Rouse taking over.

This is also good news.

Rouse taking over permanently?

Not exactly clear

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-chief-of-staff-hands-off-some-daily-duties-move-aimed-at-boosting-west-wing-efficiency/2011/11/08/gIQAsk0l0M_story.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/daley_shifts_white_house_respo033345.php

Charles Pierce and Alan Grayson should team up and go on the road.

My god, Caligula died centuries too soon. Today, if he’d brought his horse into the Senate, some careerist Beltway journo would find that the horse had whinnied some “interesting new approaches” to our “entitlement crisis.” The horse would be on Meet the Press the following Sunday with David Gregory, who would ignore the fact that there is a fking horse sitting across the table from him and concentrate instead on something the horse had whinnied five years ago that seems to have been contradicted by something the horse whinnied the day before. And then Tom Brokaw would come on to mumble something about how horses were more politically savvy back in his day.

well well well

In addition, Republicans are offering to use a less generous measure of inflation to adjust formulas government-wide, a proposal that would push people more rapidly into higher tax brackets. That would generate an extra $40 billion over the next decade, according to several people with knowledge the discussions.

this is so fucked up

The offer envisions a tax code rewrite that would lower rates for everyone while raising overall tax collections by $250 billion, mainly by limiting the value of itemized deductions such as write-offs for home mortgage interest, state and local taxes and other expenses.

Yeah, America will love that. Especially the "paying taxes on your taxes" part.

xp, yeah, especially since they left out a word: "a proposal that would push poorer people more rapidly into higher tax brackets." After all, it's not like the top two brackets can go any higher.

such as write-offs for home mortgage interest, state and local taxes

yeah, time for some withholding of our own.

obviously this is just more posturing, but it isn't totally inconsequential. basically what it signals is that the GOP has accepted the need to appear open to compromise (at least superficially), rather than allowing themselves to be painted as intransigent,obstructionist ideologues. I don't expect this actual proposal to go anywhere, this is kind of a counter to the Dem proposal that "leaked" a week or two ago.

xp

"However, the tax increases would be offset by permanently extending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts past their 2012 expiration date"

lol how does this square with your generously proffered cuts, you dicktards

It's a scam as Digby and others have been suggesting for awhile--we'll make these little changes as long as you agree to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, slash entitlements, etc.

Shakey, that Post article on the Republican tax deductions offer on the supercommittee was written by Lori Montgomery who wrote a dreadful, error-filled piece on Social Security a few days ago that Dean Baker and others ripped apart. I am surprised this article actually contains some criticism of the Republican proposal.

The danger still is that some Dems might be willing to do the entitlement cuts either on the supercommittee or if it deadlocks, perhaps afterwards rather than the previously agreed to defense cuts that the Pentagon and Republicans are whining about

did we do this?

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/08/personhoods_mississippi_moment_of_truth/

"Brad Prewitt... the campaign director charged with passing the initiative, which defines life as beginning at fertilization. He’s also a father through in-vitro fertilization, which fertility specialists say Initiative 26 would make practically impossible.

'Nothing’s fair,' Prewitt replied, according to a recording, and walked away."

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cristen-hemmins/vote-no-letter-from-dr-nichols-sr-pastor-first-baptist-church-greenville-ms/10150382532543771

i'm hunting for live results but every political website is leading with cain nonsense. is anyone just listing returns?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2011/by_state/MS_Page_1108.html?SITE=WMPNFMELN&SECTION=POLITICS

early going, 1% of precincts reporting,
NO - 55
YES - 45

whoo!

Ohio results at 18% in look pretty promising (something like 64% voting 'no' for issue 2)

AP just called it as defeated

But Voter ID in MS is passing bigtime, 61-39, grrrr

early going, 1% of precincts reporting,
NO - 55
YES - 45

This was on the MS personhood amendment btw

"Nothings fair"

smdh

As goes The Corner so goes Ohio.

Unfortunately, the "anti-Obamacare" measure is currently winning.

Love how that NRO piece typically fails to mention that Citizens United and the Koch bros spent about a bazillion dolllars in Ohio on pro-SB5 ads the last couple of weeks.

Personhood bullshit CRUSHED at the polls.

But Voter ID in MS is passing bigtime, 61-39, grrrr

my abortion rights friends are suggesting that voter ID will shut out plenty of the people who voted against 26 so next time they try it they'll have a better chance of passing it.

still, the defeat of 26 is FUCKING AWESOME.

^ this. was seriously concerned it would pass. today's biggest relief on a day full of favorable results.

(fuck voter id in the face though)

like being down by two TDs early and winning by three

the 3rd ballot initiative, restricting the state using eminent domain for private-business land grabs, passed, so YAY 2, BOO 1

On the other hand, in a year we're going to be pining for the good old days of Governor Haley Barbour

Apparently governor-elect Phil Bryant said in a rally yesterday "If Prop 26 fails, then SATAN WINS"

fuckyeahsatanwinning.tumblr.com

ha the county my dad is from in ohio is referenced in that corner article as being one of the few to vote yes on 2. smh

As an Ohioan I am VERY VERY happy issue 2 was defeated. That is all.

Adding to the roffles out West:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/11/08/20111108russell-pearce-recall-trailing-jerry-lewis.html

http://gifsoup.com/view5/1925387/shake-it-off-o.gif

If only.

no on 26 is amazing news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15640952

loooool

I wish all the news out of MS last night was good. Aside from the horrible stupid voter ID passage, we have

JACKSON - Republicans picked up key House districts in Northeast Mississippi it appears will give them control of the state House for the first time since the 1800s.

Other news worth noting:

Maine rolls back voter restriction
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/18849/Default.aspx

Gay candidate beats horrible anti-gay incumbent in Florida
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2011/11/08/gay-candidate-beats-anti-gay-incumbent-in-florida-race/

Democrats nearly sweep Kentucky (yes, they're Kentucky Democrats, but still)
http://www.kentucky.com/vote-results/

Michigan teachers oust GOP legislator
http://www.necn.com/11/09/11/Mich-state-lawmaker-says-he-lost-recall-/landing.html?&apID=7b80b2d074dd433f8efd9b558a04fd21

And not of much interest outside my own city, but here in Knoxville we just elected our first woman mayor, who's an actual liberal, gay-friendly Democrat to boot
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2011/nov/09/knoxville-elections-roundup/

So, pretty good night overall.

JACKSON - Republicans picked up key House districts in Northeast Mississippi it appears will give them control of the state House for the first time since the 1800s.

Oh how I long for the GOP of the 1800's.

Virginia looks like its Senate may go back to Republicans (some votes are still close)which would give them control of everything. In my Virginia district no Republicans even ran for certain offices(I also voted for a Green Party candidate who lost to Dems), while in the Southern part of the state there were districts where no Democrats ran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/atlanta-overwhelmingly-oks-sunday-alcohol-sales-shoppers-could-buy-liquor-as-soon-as-jan-1/2011/11/08/gIQAdLPh3M_story.html

Atlanta overwhelmingly approves Sunday Sales of alcohol. Jesus cries.

I must have missed this, but why is the thread title "Uzbeki-beki..." and not "Ubeki-beki ..." ?

to piss off max iirc

OK, then.

how can that voter MS ID thing possibly stand up in court

I don't think it could have, but we won't have to find out for a while. There was some chatter (on ilx?) that passage and then defeat in the courts would have strengthened Roe, but I didn't like the idea of skating on that knife-edge.

I'm talking about the voter ID thing

sorry, my reading comprehension is poor today

cool updates tipsy, thx!

st. paul, mn has gone to ranked voting, one race ends in runoff

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/133505633.html

kinda interesting

Another good Rolling Stone article about the transformation of the GOP into the party of plutocrats. Nice bait and switch in the first few paragraphs too.

Not by Matt Taibbi, by the way. Excerpt:

It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country. As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

There was only one problem: The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession. Republican leaders in Congress immediately moved to reverse themselves and feed the beast. "It was not a Democrat who led the effort in 1982 to undo about a third of the Reagan tax cuts," recalls Robert Greenstein, president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It was Bob Dole." Even Reagan embraced the tax hike, Stockman says, "because he believed that, at some point, you have to pay the bills."

For the remainder of his time in office, Reagan repeatedly raised taxes to bring down unwieldy deficits. In 1983, he hiked gas and payroll taxes. In 1984, he raised revenue by closing tax loopholes for businesses. The tax reform of 1986 lowered the top rate for the wealthy to just 28 percent – but that cut for high earners was paid for by closing tax loopholes that resulted in the largest corporate tax hike in history. Reagan also raised revenues by abolishing special favors for the investor class: He boosted taxes on capital gains by 40 percent to align them with the taxes paid on wages. Today, Reagan may be lionized as a tax abolitionist, says Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and friend of the president, but that's not true to his record. "Reagan raised taxes 11 times in eight years!"

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

A well-sourced story too. Besides the apostate David Stockman, we get Alan Simpson, George Voinivich, Paul O'Neill, Mitch Daniels...

Alan Simpson:

You can look up my record: On conservatism and taxes I was better than Jesse Helms," says Simpson, the former senator. "But whatever happened to common sense? People are going to look around in five or 10 years and say, 'Whatever happened to the things that made me comfortable? That made our streets and schools good things?' And they'll look, hopefully, at Grover Norquist. I can say to you with deepest sincerity: If this country and this legislature are in thrall to Grover Norquist, we haven't got a prayer."

the tax cuts über alles obsession really started to flower with Papa Bush -- the whole backtracking on his "read my lips" pledge -- even though in retrospect, he turned out to be closer to Reagan wr2 his philosophy re taxes than the Gingrich-era GOP.

newtie is the one to blame for unleashing the lunatics IMHO.

that article is just a long succession of bitter lols and headshaking

It's also a bit soft on the Gipper.

it's supposed to be! the writer's using the gipper to show how batshit insane current GOPers are

But for his rare moment in '85 regarding changing the tax code Reagan never discussed taxing aloud. Never.

Alan Simpson's current deficit reduction plan is pretty ugly and his comments regarding Social Security are disgusting too. That he can be seen as to the left of Grover Norquist is good, but it is not saying much.

Cah the rest of Durbin's colleagues please keep him quiet:

from thehill.com

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) diverged from Democratic colleagues Wednesday and applauded the Republican offer to raise $300 billion in new taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal.

Democratic members of the supercommittee on Tuesday had panned the GOP offer as insufficient.

Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democratic leader, chose to focus on the positive and hailed the latest development as a “breakthrough.” He was worked on a massive deficit-reduction package for more than a year as a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission and the Senate’s Gang of Six.

“The fact that some Republicans have stepped forward to talk about revenue, I think, is an invitation for Democrats to step forward and talk about entitlement reform as well as spending cuts. Therein lies the core of an agreement,” Durbin said.

the tax cuts über alles obsession really started to flower with Papa Bush -- the whole backtracking on his "read my lips" pledge -- even though in retrospect, he turned out to be closer to Reagan wr2 his philosophy re taxes than the Gingrich-era GOP.

newtie is the one to blame for unleashing the lunatics IMHO.

It all goes back to Norquist -- he introduced the tax pledge ca. 1987, so that by the '88 presidential campaign, there was lots of pressure for Repubs to adopt it. And then Norquist and Newt became buddies.

The White House is expected to delay a decision on the contested $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline for 12 to 18 months while it studies an alternate route, officials said on Thursday.

noice

what an interesting timeline

yeah, shakey was mentioning that over on the Energy Thread, and i think he's probably right - Obama will just wait until a few months after the election and then approve the pipeline, most likely. i was hoping for some sort of categorical DENIAL, right now, but that was always going to be unlikely. i hope that the momentum that the enviro groups and grassroots protests have built up over this won't wither away, but will instead escalate and make the decision is an election issue, withholding support for Obama unless he makes a campaign promise (looool, sigh) to deny the permit. but that also seems unlikely. from a cold political perspective, it was a good move for obama.

i guess the glass is half empty crowd would say that obama really wants to deny the pipeline now but can't because of the election, and after the election he'll be able to deny it...but...yeah right.

good to know what's left in that glass will be deliciously black oil rich in 18 months

what's right you mean

fwiw, Bill McKibben sounds a more optimistic note in the email he just sent out to all the tar sands activists (bolds are his):

Dear Friends,

Um, we won. You won.

Not completely. The president didn’t outright reject the pipeline permit. My particular fantasy--that he would invite the 1253 people arrested on his doorstep in August inside the gates for a victory picnic by the vegetable garden--didn’t materialize.

But a few minutes ago the president sent the pipeline back to the State Department for a thorough re-review, which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project. The president explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess. There’s no way, with an honest review, that a pipeline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.

And he has made clear that the environmental assessment won’t be carried out by cronies of the pipeline company--that it will be an expert and independent assessment. We will watch that process like hawks, making sure that it doesn’t succumb to more cronyism. Perhaps this effort will go some tiny way towards cleaning up the Washington culture of corporate dominance that came so dramatically to light here in emails and lobbyist disclosure forms.

...Our fight, of course, is barely begun. Some in our movement will say that this decision is just politics as usual: that the president wants us off the streets - and off his front lawn - until after the election, at which point the administration can approve the pipeline, alienating its supporters without electoral consequence. The president should know that If this pipeline proposal somehow reemerges from the review process we will use every tool at our disposal to keep it from ever being built; if there’s a lesson of the last few months, both in our work and in the Occupy encampments around the world, it’s that sometimes we have to put our bodies on the line.

"which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project"

i wonder which analysts he's reading?

i don't know. i want to meet these analysts.

gabbneb and clemenza

No mention of Perry imploding in last night's debate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDbm_HUn8e8

2012 republican presidential nominee II: back into hell

yes, here we concentrate on the scumbags who currently have power, like the sitting president.

US POLITICS FALL 2011 ONLY and bickering

US POLITICS WINTER 2011: Larry, Curly and....what the 3rd one?

ha

"which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project"

yeah what is the reasoning behind this

Karl Rove remains a scumbag with money and a desire to push his lies

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/a_crossroads_gps_pattern_emerg033440.php

"which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project"

just noticed that apparently this review includes "environmental impacts" ...? maybe that's the cause for hope.

This article says it's still likely to go ahead, but with some re-routing around the most environmentally sensitive areas:

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1085232--keystone-xl-pipeline-project-still-likely-to-proceed-analyst-says

"WASHINGTON -- Under their latest proposal to the deficit reduction super committee, Democrats would agree to undertake comprehensive tax reform that included a pledge to avoid letting Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire."
{HuffPo - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/super-committee-democrats-taxes_n_1088407.html)

Calm me down Shakey, please tell me this won't happen

fuck the democratic party imo

ugh

Good morning!

More good news from today's Geithner NYT profile:

In the summer of 2010, for example, Mr. Geithner tried to get the White House to fight to make sure the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expired at the end of that year as scheduled — not only to reduce deficits but to be more fair.

“The most affluent 400 earners in 2007, who earned an average of more than $340 million each that year, paid only 17 percent of their income in taxes — a lower rate than many who consider themselves middle-class Americans,” Mr. Geithner said in a speech at the time, as he tried to lead the charge against Republicans’ push to extend the rates.

Yet Mr. Obama did not take up the cause, dissuaded by Democrats in Congress who were worried about how a tax fight might affect the midterm elections.

That "oh noes we can't talk about taxes ever" shit from summer 2010 Democrats is just soooo disheartening.

Yet Mr. Obama did not take up the cause, dissuaded by Democrats in Congress who were worried about how a tax fight might affect the midterm elections.

whew I'm glad things worked out well for them. Obama otm.

yeah we really avoided a beatdown there

Good to hear Obama's supporting the OWS guys!

"WASHINGTON -- Under their latest proposal to the deficit reduction super committee, Democrats would agree to undertake comprehensive tax reform that included a pledge to avoid letting Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire."
{HuffPo - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/super-committee-democrats-taxes_n_1088407.html)

lol didn't we have a dust-up over this where the line was "don't be mad at the president/democrats, those tax cuts are going to expire eventually anyway, let them just allow the expiration date to happen & it'll be chill"

it's all about Obama's reelection -- get with the fucking program

man it would do so much good for the country if those cuts expired but I guess it is too much to ask

fucking pity about that, literally almost everyone would benefit but I guess other things are more important

That putz from ABC News Jonathan Karl gave Donna Brazile his best you-don't-know-shit-lady glare when she mentioned the Bush tax cuts. "That is NEVER going to happen!" he said contemptuously. This was after he praised the "concessions" the GOP has made.

in fairness to the prez, I don't have an original source but huffpo claims he's said he'll veto anything that tries to extend the Bush tax cuts. it remains to be seen if he will, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. any Dems who are actually willing to entertain the idea of not letting them expire are scumbags tho.

He probably will -- it's reelection time. Libs must come home.

man it would do so much good for the country if those cuts expired but I guess it is too much to ask

No it's not! Also I don't understand what this has to do with reelection since most of the country (and certainly democrats) want the tax cuts to expire. Here's a good example of an area where the 1% has a tremendously unfair influence.

I guess the ABC putz is right, bcz it IS never going to happen until we storm the Bastille.

Republicans will rant that Dems are raising taxes on the middle-class blah blah blah, and scared Dems won't let any of the Bush tax cuts expire (nor will they get rid of questionable deductions or raise the capital gains tax rate or crack down on corporate loopholes or up the cap on funding Social Security). We're doomed.

Morbs is right (and I hate saying that).

I wouldn't put a ton of faith in that Huffpo article. "leaked proposals" lol. "gee why are these things being leaked" you should always ask. I dunno what's gonna happen with the Bush tax cuts really, but would guess that any Supercommittee proposal that lets them expire won't pass the GOP. If the Dems agree to that concession, then they're setting up a confrontation with Obama in an election year, so they aren't gonna want that either... my money's still on the Supercommittee failing and/or kicking the can down the road still farther.

http://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/kick_the_can_.jpg

fucking pity about that, literally almost everyone would benefit but I guess other things are more important

well, maybe not "more important," but i understand the house is taking up an emergency bill to make 11.16.11 "national ronald reagan bobblehead doll day." this is expected to stimulate the nat'l economy so . . .

Hopefully the supercomittee will fail, but then Congress will probably not impose the trigger cuts because of Pentagon whining. The Washington Post published a letter (in the letters to the editor section)over the weekend from a think tank supporting the idea of Pentagon cuts with details on where to cut from the military budget and how it would still leave the military strong. It figures that the only way such an argument could make it into the Washington Post is via the letters.

The other concern via Greg Sargent at the W. Post:

If I’m reading this correctly, Democrats are offering a deal that includes significantly more in deficit reduction, and significantly more in spending cuts — two things Republicans want. The Dem condition for this deal is that spending cuts and tax increases be equal in amount. But that’s a nonstarter.

So Republicans will say we will agree to your deficit reduction number total, and we will agree to your spending cuts, but let's punt the tax details (including changing the Bush ones) forward to another future subcommittee, while imposing the agreed to cuts now. Then if Republicans regain the Senate and retain the House they can do whatever they want with taxes.

it's kind of amazing just how cynical everyone has become now wr2 Obama and the Dems. not that it's w/t justification, but considering the good will so many here had for them both almost three years ago it is something to behold.

also, this is a replay of last year's tax-expiration games. Congress punted it to Obama in the summer of '10, he punted it back in the winter, and now it looks like they're about to do it all over again (and i'm not holding my breath waiting on any onside kicking action here).

it's kind of amazing just how cynical everyone has become now wr2 Obama and the Dems. not that it's w/t justification, but considering the good will so many here had for them both almost three years ago it is something to behold.

Eisbaer, please! We've been calling shit on the Dems for years in these threads.

how cynical everyone has become now wr2 Obama and the Dems.

realism vs cynicism once again!

Eisbaer, please! We've been calling shit on the Dems for years in these threads.

OTM. This isn't the first time they're dropping the ball, and every time it happens, it seems more and more certain that it won't be the last.

"calling shit on" and voting for...

C'mon, don't tell me all that ecstasy here in Nov '08 was for "history." It was delusional.

This isn't the first time they're dropping the ball

We've decided they've dropped the ball because of that Huffington Post article?

C'mon, don't tell me all that ecstasy here in Nov '08 was for "history." It was delusional.

The percentage of ILX'ers who were ecstatic over the events of November 2008 is smaller than the number of people who've seen Melancholia, you delusional cane-waver.

I mean, gabbneb is long gone. timellison is all that's left of his religion.

Morbs is right (and I hate saying that).

http://www.affordablepoliticalitems.com/shop/images/uploads/ws00789.jpg

I dunno, for the first time in my adult life, I was proud of my etc.

i don't know what the hell that pin is about, but i love it.

ted baxter, right?

i'd vote for him for GOP nominee, tbh.

...that's barry goldwater

Yeah. That was Barry's campaign slogan. The pic flatters him somewhat, but the Ted Baxter resemblance was genuine.

We've decided they've dropped the ball because of that Huffington Post article?

― timellison, Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:03 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

lol lol

It was exciting having Bush gone and seeing a state like Virginia go Democrat for the first time since '64 and the historic nature of Obama being elected. Obama even made campaign statements against deregulation...

Although I quietly told myself that just like with Clinton I was bound to be disappointed and soon enough I was.

I wonder if Tim was happy when Obama hired Geithner (who despite the recent token statements Soto found, was never exactly Krugmanesque) and Larry Summers, continued Bush style renditions of detainees, and later decided he wanted a grand bargain with entitlement cuts.

OK, well, I'm not sure about his reasons for hiring more conservative economists. I am glad, though, that we managed to elect a president that was able to get the first stimulus through, signed Dodd-Frank into law, and actually passed some health care reform measures. Entitlement restructuring that doesn't have a negative impact on the poor or the elderly is something I'm open to.

And I'm certainly open to the idea that there are still human rights violations going on with detainees as well.

ted baxter, right?

i'd vote for him for GOP nominee, tbh.

― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, November 15, 2011

...that's barry goldwater

― zvookster, Tuesday, November 15, 2011

omg i've become a barry goldwater supporter in my old age.

http://www.tennrebgirl.com/images/store/gutsnuts.jpg

IN YOUR EYE, YOU KNOW HE'S AWRY
IN YOUR BALLS, YOU SKIP HIS CALLS
IN YOUR SACK, YOU TURN HIM BACK
IN YOUR BONES, YOU KNOW HE'S . . . SCONES? WHATEVER THIS GOT BORING QUICKLY.

One for the plus column:

"Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions. It’s contrary to our ideals. That’s not who we are. That’s not how we operate..." - Obama, yesterday

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/quote-for-the-day-11.html

obama otm, torture is best left to the countries to which we send prisoners

it's called outsourcing

What is the status of that, anyway? Do we even know? From what I've read, the initial premise when the administration came in was that renditions might still take place, but only with guarantees about treatment.

the status is that you are not allowed to know

matter of "national security" innit

it's called outsourcing

― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:30 PM (5 minutes ago)

the american way!

Not that you want to jump to conclusions. Even someone from Human Rights Watch states here that renditions are legitimate in some cases:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

One for the plus column for McCain too, right, who said the same thing yesterday? so a wash when it comes to 2008

x-post -Tim --Here's the rest of what the Human Rights Watch guy said

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said

Here's a link re current Obama administration secrecy
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-rendition-controversy-reemerges-obama-admin-policies-murky

who said the same thing yesterday?

Yup

ellison's torture excuses are so completely sickening

not going to argue about them any more than I'd argue with somebody who said outright "torture's just fine as long as I'm a member of the party that tortures," just registering that it's disgusting

How fucking disingenuous. Why in the world would the US gov even need to send prisoners to these other counties by way of extraordinary rendition and then ask them not to torture? That's the whole reason prisoners get sent there. That's like sending chefs to cooking school in France and asking them not to be taught French cooking.

xpost.

I don't think anyone here is making excuses for torture. Obviously there's still a ways to go, but let's at least not move backwards by electing one of these GOP blowhards.

If Obama authorizes torture, it's legal.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2011/11/15/skewed-foreign-policy/

There’s no question that our foreign policy is skewed very badly, and neoconservatives are a significant part of the reason why that is so, but the “powerful reason” to re-elect Obama would be to deny the Presidency to the likely nominee who is surrounded by advisers drawn from their ranks. There isn’t much reason to expect that Obama’s second term would be substantively better on foreign policy than his first term was. If he was “checkmated” in the first term, he will continue to be stymied in the second. Even if neoconservative critics cannot or will not acknowledge it, administration policy towards Iran has become increasingly confrontational, and almost everything that distinguished Obama on foreign policy has disappeared.

Unfortunately, as I have been saying for some time now, the substantive differences between Romney and Obama on many foreign policy issues are few, and their respective Iran policies are virtually indistinguishable. That isn’t an argument for Obama, nor is it a “powerful” reason to support his re-election. It is little more than a “lesser of two evils” argument. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t say much for Obama. He may have been “checkmated” on some issues by opposition at home, but it doesn’t change the reality that Obama has been actively contributing to the skewing of U.S. foreign policy through continued militarization and the strengthening of the imperial Presidency. The main argument in his favor is that his likely replacement would be far worse.

lol the Washington Post front page has a SUPERCOMMITTEE COUNTDOWN CLOCK on it

goole, do we really even know the extent of the attempt made by the administration in its early days toward making diplomatic gains with Iran? They seemed genuine when they came in about making the effort.

Not sure if that's the crux of your criticism.

those are larison's words fwiw

oh, OK.

on most of the threads i read if i'm seeing capital letters i default to the assumption that it's a quote, ha

on most of the threads i read if i'm seeing capital letters i default to the assumption that it's a quote, ha

p much

lol the Washington Post front page has a SUPERCOMMITTEE COUNTDOWN CLOCK on it

Plus another huge Lori "token paragraph quoting liberals gets buried near the middle" Montgomery article about the supercommittee. Some typical Norquist quotes in there plus a mention that moveon.org is gonna try to send tons of emails or something to the Dems on the group, on Thursday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcCvvJWyx4c&feature=player_embedded

It makes me sad to see how unhinged Victoria Jackson is now.

it makes me sad to realize that what I once took to be a genius comic act was actually just a moron being a moron

genuine comic act? really?

I was gonna ask by what you meant "is now," as I never had any evidence either way til recently.

genuine comic act? really?

lemme find one of those Tonight Show clips...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkGm4-KSDU&feature=player_embedded

shouldn't it be "polichicks" instead of "politichicks"

Anyone know what the interstate law precedent is behind this gun bill that passed the House today? Would allow people with permit to carry a concealed weapon from one state to use that permit to carry the weapon in any state.

SEIU endorses Obama, with prez asking "Do we want leaders who side with rich corporations and the 1 percent ... or do we want leaders who side with the rest of us, the 99 percent, who will fight to build a strong middle class?"

*bangs head against wall*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/obama-2012-seiu_n_1097340.html

lolz

I can't even...who ARE those women?? cut the meat cut the meat cut the meat

Anyone know what the interstate law precedent is behind this gun bill that passed the House today? Would allow people with permit to carry a concealed weapon from one state to use that permit to carry the weapon in any state.

Apparently concealed carry permits are a lot more like drivers licenses than they are like marriage licenses.

Do we want leaders who side with rich corporations and the 1 percent

By endorsing Obama, I guess so!

skipped to a random part of the "politichicks" video and watched exactly five seconds, which were victoria jackson saying "they're allowed to beat up or behead their wife, legally, in america, because we're 'open to all religions'!"

going to assume she was prognosticating.

Oh be quiet you 147 Congressional members (and Post columnist Dana Milbank) who want to cut entitlements in exchange for token tax changes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/big-enough-to-save-the-supercommittee/2011/11/16/gIQAKr2BSN_story.html?hpid=z3

“We’ll have your back,” agreed House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

“We are here,” said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), “to make sure the supercommittee knows that we’ve got its back.”

“We got their back,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) concurred.

Their clichés were tired, but their bravery was refreshing: Democrats willing to cut Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans willing to raise taxes, because that’s what’s in the national interest.

As somebody dedicated to mocking politicians for their misdeeds, I’m often asked whether there are any good ones. Well, on the stage Wednesday morning was a group of lawmakers engaged in the best tradition of public service. (For a full listing of these profiles in courage, you can see the House members’ names here, and the senators here.)

In all, there are 147 members of the self-proclaimed “Go Big Coalition” — and that’s the problem. It represents not even a third of the 535 members of Congress. While some members of leadership were in attendance Wednesday (Hoyer, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander), not one of the top leaders -- Reid, McConnell, Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Eric Cantor – has joined the effort.

In fact, the supercommittee is getting little support from leadership on either side, and some, such as Reid, have been overtly hostile to efforts to forge a debt compromise. That has made the supercommittee members, who were appointed by the leaders, far less willing to cut a deal: Though they know that the panel’s failure to act would further undermine confidence in government, it wouldn’t be as devastating as having the entire Congress vote down the supercommittee’s recommendations next month.

Back in July, when the compromise was forged to create the supercommittee, the nation’s attention was focused on the effort. A week before the deadline to reach that deal, President Obama and Boehner gave dueling speeches to the nation. Now congressional leaders are working bankers’ hours, and the public has lost focus: A Politico/George Washington University poll found that 88 percent of Americans are not familiar or only somewhat familiar with the supercommittee.

The lawmakers who crowded the stage Wednesday morning tried to change that. “Most Americans, if they saw this scene behind me, would say, ‘I didn’t think that was possible,’ ” Durbin said, “‘I didn’t think you could bring together so many Democrats and Republicans from the House and Senate to agree on anything.’”

And these guys actually seemed to like each other. Hoyer made a show of celebrating his “fraternity brother” Chambliss and his “partner,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). “The public doesn’t believe that we have good friends across the aisle,” he said. “That’s not accurate.”

It was a rare feel-good moment, but it was brought back to reality during the question time, when a reporter pointed out that Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), the supercommittee’s Republican co-chair, has said up to that point that he would not compromise any further on taxes, while Republicans are complaining that Democrats haven’t offered a new proposal in a week.

“Failure’s not an option,” Hoyer said. “Our country needs us now.”

Another questioner asked about all the Republicans who had signed a pledge not to raise taxes. “We are ready to make the compromises and build the solutions that can help bring all the parties together,” Crapo said. He and his colleagues, he added, are “ready to stand here and make the kinds of decisions that will help us as a nation to solve our fiscal crisis.”

If only the Go Big Coalition had a majority.

lol "bravery"

please no quoting of dana milbank itt

In some ways he's more annoying than blowhards like Krauthammer and Will. He does that phony "national interest" responsible adult nonsense.

yeah why couldn't Millbank have died with Tim Russert?

Now that he's back from his piss-off-China makeout session with Australia, looking fwd to Bam condemning Gestapo police tactics in our major cities.

Maybe he could have a beer summit with some NYPD cops and OWS protesters.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/suspect-in-white-house-shooting-to-be-charged-with-assassination-attempt/?hpt=hp_t2

O_O

No beer for China though.

alan
The guy should be given a medal for tying to kill a dictator.

November 17, 2011 at 2:56 p

figures someone would finally satisfy my ongoing paranoia that someone is going to shoot at Obama by shooting at the White House when he wasn't even there

x-post
benen on washington monthly is quoting a few college Republican group members saying stuff like that

head of the UT college repubs said "guys even if its tempting, please don't" assassinate

lol "even if it's tempting"

wtf

will be charged with attempting to assassinate the president or a member of his staff

huh?! this is assassination creep.

Oswald dying on Dallas jail floor: "I was going for Pierre Salinger"

ha

"assassination creep" is an amazing phrase

Great Nirvana song, too.

Depressing thoughts from Yglesias re: the super-committee:

The strange thing about the "super committee" process is that it’s been clear from the beginning that the Democrats will end up surrendering one way or the other.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/11/16/370185/tomorrows-cave-in-today/

Republicans, by contrast, have no problem with the defense trigger.

uh this is wrong

I mean it's true that Democrats don't actually want the defense cuts either, but defense cuts don't matter to their base eg they will not negatively impact their reelection prospects

But Weigel at slate says:

Instead, Republicans are talking about rejiggering the triggers, which would set up a fight on defense spending, which Democrats would be hard pressed to win when they don't control the House and when 21 of their senators are vulnerable to truth-remixing Crossroads GPS ads about how they literally pried guns out of the hands of soldiers

rejiggering the triggers

where the hell do these reporters learn how to write?

Arthur Murray?

I thought "rejigger the trigger" was from the new Drake album

The Republicans will just go back and renege on any deal they agreed to (triggers) while Dems will cave on everything. We're doomed.

how do you manage to get out of bed in the morning

He checks this thread first.

The Republicans will just go back and renege on any deal they agreed to (triggers)

very possible

while Dems will cave on everything

they'll probably cave on some things, but this is an election year so they will have to throw their base something

x-post re "we're doomed"--
It's said partially tongue in cheek in the manner of a 1970s animated character on a version of Gulliver's Travels I vaguely recall.

angst about capitulation isn't all on the Dem side y'know

they'll probably cave on some things, but this is an election year so they will have to throw their base something

or kick it down field again and hope everyone forgets ... just like last year.

hey last year wasn't a super-duper election year, lets be fair

yeah, i know. hope springs eternal, OWS may have an impact ... but countervailing tendencies (read: fear of GOP attack ads about raising taxes) also are in play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo

so they will have to throw their base something

I see you are unfamiliar w/ Democratic voters

Really interested to see how sending Secretary Clinton to Myanmar works out.

is she coming back?

Meanwhile Krugman says super-committee failure is something to celebrate:

So the supercommittee will fail — and that’s good. For one thing, history tells us that the Republican Party would renege on its side of any deal as soon as it got the chance... So any deal reached now would, in practice, be nothing more than a deal to slash Social Security and Medicare, with no lasting improvement in the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/krugman-failure-is-good.html?hp

But he doesn't mention anything about the automatic cuts that are supposed to be triggered by super-committee failure. I'm puzzled what he thinks will happen with those.

He needs to read Shakey's posts.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/164679/austerity-alternatives

What Milbank and those annoying reasonable adults will never consider re entitlements and the deficit

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-usa-lunch-idUSTRE7AH00020111118

this is insane

tomato paste is a vegetable

what the

Reagan made ketchup a vegatable and now today's Congress has ensured that a tiny amount of tomato paste on pizza is a vegetable. You liberals, trying to force your hippie eating habits on kids...

Plus you are messing with job-creating pizza and tomato-paste manufactures, and the potato industry (cuz french fries are veggies too).

yeah saw this coming a week ago. such bullshit. fat kids, let's have 'em!

how else will we keep the dynamic healthcare industry alive amirite

I got a bill working its way through committee that classifies my dick as a vegetable

pacting w/self right now to never regret that joke

"She's vegetarian except when it comes to sex"

So let me see if I understand this; you are lobbying Congress to feed hungry schoolchildren your dick?

(^^^ stress-testing yr pact)

not just that but he thinks they need multiple servings a day

this is like when the GOP makes a pact with America right (ie immediately regretted)

aero, I am respectfully "choking" back some ripostes to that one.

America needs multiple servings a day of my dick. DJP & iatee want to deny America its recommended daily allowance of my dick. Do not vote for DJP & iatee imo

Several voters on the gay thread are missing their daily allowance.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap1.gif

aero, do you have anything to recommend about america's daily allowance of nuts

congrats btw on the successful passage of your previous legislation re: yr nuts

DAMMIT xp

GINGRICH/AERO'S DICK 2012

okay feeding our schoolchildren Newt Gingrich is just cruel AND unhealthy

clearly vegans are gettin' the shaft here

it's a hairy situation

bro-in-law met Sec'y of Defense "Drones" P4nett4 at work yesterday, thought he seemed like "a nice guy" who engaged ppl w/ a lot of questions. I made no comment since I'll probably live out my dotage in sister's basement.

if Sydney Pollack were still alive, I'd cast him as Panetta.

I had a pancetta/my dick remark but I think my dick's hour in this thread's limelight has sadly faded

RIP

it's realy sad, it was yr dick

difficult dick hour

because it was bitter
because it was my dick

whose dick this is I think I know
his balls are in the village, though

he will not see me ballin here
and watch his mouth fill up with...

Because I Could Not Stop for Dick
It Kindly Stopped for me
My Mouth Held Just His Balls
And Immortality

"Truth, Lord, but I have marr'd them; let my shame
Go where it doth deserve."
"And know you not," says Love, "who bore the blame?"
"My dear, then I will serve."
"You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat."
So I did sit and eat.

mark but deez nuts, and mark in this
how little that which thou deniest me is

the great thing about those Metaphysical poems is we barely have to touch'em.

Just a playful caress?

It totters when she licks it with her tongue
I sha'n't be gone long
You come too

*moves bookmark*

A narrow fellow in the grass
Occasionally rides;
You may have met him,--did you not,
His notice sudden is.

The grass divides as with a comb,
A spotted shaft is seen;
And then it closes at your feet
And opens further on.

He likes a boggy acre,

GOP really trying hard here guys!

Instead, Republicans proposed to achieve $640 billion in savings, primarily through cuts to domestic agency budgets, a pay freeze and bigger pension contributions for federal workers, cuts in farm subsidies and an array of other spending cuts and revenue raisers.

The offer, delivered Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), included no cuts to the Pentagon other than attrition in the civilian workforce. It also included just one small tax increase, focused on owners of corporate jets, failing two key tests for Democratic negotiators.

lol

like man what a great offer - here accept some cuts that are worse and deeper than the triggered cuts, spares the pentagon entirely, and has one token tax increase. high comedy.

gop to call for federal employees to volunteer to be turned upside-down and having the money that falls out of their pockets seized for budgetary reasons

http://a57.foxnews.com/img.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/news/660/466/Chavez%20and%20Obama.jpg

i am going to go out on a limb and say that picture is photoshopped.

call me crazy!

Analysing the SEIU endorsement.

u british now?

boehner be caving

NRO's genius says the Dems lost this one in the long term. I don't understand his a-ha glee. Most people know the payroll tax...is a tax (Frances Perkins among other libs in the FDR administration hated it for this reason).

whose job is it/whom does symmetry require start the 2012 thread? my nom for title is "Indefinite detention? But I have soccer practice at 4"

go 4 it

^^

yes

yes

We need a running count of who's next in line.

keep reading this as US POLITICS FAIL

Iowa ILE poll results in, Aero should do it (since he first brought it up).

Aero who? Aero me?

STEVEN TYLER THIS IS YOUR MOMENT

plz lock thread, mods.

It ain't "FALL 2011" no more.

continued at

Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012