US POLITICS SUMMER 2011: The Rise of Neo-Gabbnebism

Cuz it's true. Symmetry required it too.

i could sense that cantor's haircut was blended

the day that i've been waiting for is almost here:

it's the tim pawlenty gun range photoshoot http://yfrog.com/kjk3myjj

i was holding out for his hunting photo op, but this is probably close enough

Greg Sargent reports that House Democrats are using Reagan to woo Republicans into voting for the debt ceiling increase:

Dana Milbank had a provocative column this morning arguing that on the debt ceiling, Dems have become the new party of Ronald Reagan, and that Republicans only honor their alleged hero Reagan in the breach and not the observance. After all, Reagan presided over 18 debt ceiling hikes as President. But for a large swath of today’s House conservatives, the drive to prevent the debt ceiling from being hiked has replaced the now-forgotten push to repeal Obamacare as their number one ideological cause celebre.

Now House liberals have hit on a fun new way of emphasizing this point: They are sending a letter today to every House Republican asking them to raise the debt limit. Only the letter wasn’t written by House liberals. It was written by Reagan himself.

Here's the letter to Minority Leader Howard Baker:

Dear Howard:
This letter is to ask for your help and support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an increase in the limit on the public debt.

As Secretary Regan has told you, the Treasury’s cash balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses, and thus the United States could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the cost, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an extension of the debt ceiling.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

lol i love the thread title btw ... so very appropriate.

US POLITICS SUMMER 2011: The Rise of Neo-Gabbnebism

same xp

can a mod lock?

both michelle bachmann and ron paul voted against the cut, cap, & balance act, hm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/sieckanddestroy/kodos.jpg

the politics of failure have failed, its time to make them work again

my palin-bachmann girl

Bears repeating:

I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an extension of the debt ceiling.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

P.S. A little help with stem-cell research? Ok, I'm done now, thx.

I'm waiting for this thread to relaunch in 3-D. Can we hold off 'til the mods retrofit?

Mitch McConnell in 3-D blowfish mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZpJ4rSITo#t=01m08s

in b4 sb

Time reported this week, “Democrats are clearly baffled by the challenge of persuading opponents who not only have a different set of priorities, but a different set of facts. ‘There’s a question about how much the facts matter to them,’ says a Democratic official. ‘And I don’t know what to do about that.’”

Facts are stupid things.

There are facts that lots of voters care about that don't seem to matter to the Dems these days.

That video of obama 'promising a net spending cut' is more than a bit disingenuous. He was basically repeating his boilerplate campaign position, which was formulated long before Lehman Bros. collapsed, and the debate where he is saying these things took place before the TARP was passed and before unemployment shot up by about six percent. When reality changes that much, you change your position along with it.

George Will:

Richard Miniter, a Forbes columnist, is right: “Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev.” Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats’ dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters.

Events are validating the Tea Partyers’ arguments. Time is on their side — but not on America’s, unless the impediment to reform is removed in 16 months.

He and Krauthammer are all peeved at Obama now embracing cutting the deficit, but they never admit that Republicans ignored the deficit till Obama came into office. This notion that slashing the size of government will happen and will bring about economic growth also ignores the Bush years. But you folks know that.

oh god, will quoting that nutcase miniter column, just what the world needed

Harry Potter and the Multiplying Tax Eaters

"dependency agenda"

the US' notoriously generous safety net is turning the peasantry into unproductive milksops

Events are validating the Tea Partyers’ arguments.

oh, ffs, george is passing out buckets of kool aid. How can he say this and also live with himself after all those columns he wrote extolling the Bush tax cuts, I wonder? Oh, now I remember, he is without a conscience.

Will tested that Tea Party compliment ("the most important thing to conservatism since the Goldwater insurgency" as if the insurgency and conservatism were discrete phenomena) on Sunday's show.

George Will should be garrotted

if u wanna read what will is giving his serious-man imprimatur to:

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardminiter/2011/07/18/why-the-democratic-party-is-doomed/

it is ~painfully stupid~

"groups that vote for democrats are getting poorer and/or losing politically. this means they will disappear soon! also, you can get porn for free now, seriously, check it out."

I agree that it is stupid, but it is a poisonous stupidity that comes wrapped up in an easy reductive simplicity, so it is a bit like the strychnine bait set out for coyotes.

What's weird is that while his analysis is superficial/selective/biased, he's pointing out that the country is getting more conservative in a lot of areas. But if the conservatives are winning and the economy is shit, what does that say?

It says they are getting very adept at deflecting the blame to scapegoats, so the connection between conservative policies and the shitty economy consistently gets overlooked by the majority of people suffering under these policies.

"reactionary liberalism" -- forgive him, Father, he know not what he typeth

(obv blind if he sees liberals anywhere near the White House)

eh i dunno. i think that politics are pretty tribal and identity-based, and people rarely if ever have their minds changed by facts or events one way or another.

i don't think "the connection between conservative policies and the shitty economy" is "overlooked by the majority of people suffering under these policies", that's just not enough people to outweigh the power of the not-suffering

there are some articles going around today about obama's surprisingly high polling numbers, considering how world-historically lousy the economy is. there's never been such a variance between disapproval of the economy and approval of the president, i guess.

this at least suggests to me that a whole lot of people have some sense of who the real culprits are, or at least, are not turning to 'tea party' explanations of the world just because times are bad.

some not-suffering people still vote for Dems

Democrats’ dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries

please please please fucking stop

you know, like ethanol and big oil

and agribusiness. I'm sure that's what he was referring to!

http://www.frumforum.com/gop-stands-by-brazilian-cotton-subsidies

i can't even

haha i kind of agree with the brazilian cotton "subsidy", in a narrow way. it's a WTO penalty.

there are some articles going around today about obama's surprisingly high polling numbers, considering how world-historically lousy the economy is

Gallup has him fairly low: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148598/Obama-Maintains-Sub-Job-Approval-10th-Quarter.aspx. But I guess the way the economy is, he could be closer to Carter territory.

in comparable situations, both Reagan and Clinton were polling in the 30s; that is the discrepancy the articles are talking about

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0719/Gallup-chief-puzzled-by-Obama-s-poll-numbers

"Looking at history, particularly Clinton and Reagan, it is somewhat surprising that [Obama] has never yet fallen into the 30 percent range in our approval rating," Newport said. "And yet both Reagan and Clinton, in their first terms when the economy was perceived as bad ... both fell into the 30s."

Newport noted, "Satisfaction with the way things are going is ... correlated with economic perceptions fairly strongly." At the same time, Obama "is overperforming. Based on where every president has been, his approval rating now is higher than we would predict it to be based on" how satisfied American adults say they are.

Pollsters are not sure why Obama has fared better than expected in the polls. Newport offered two possibilities. "One theory has to do with personal characteristics of the man," the Gallup executive said. "The other has to do with the nature of politics today." Under that theory, Obama has "kind of a rock-hard coalition that are never going to abandon him in approval ratings, and therefore that is why his approval ratings will be propped up no matter what happens."

Gallup, he added, will be conducting research to get a more definitive answer to the question.

Whenever someone overperforms, I always suspect steroids.

Oh fine. I didn't see that movie because HEL-lo, depressing.

hi

Greenwald:

The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause . As we know, the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil (and its government and owners must never be subject to the rule of law in any context). So Obama was willing (even desirous) to keep troops there, but the Iraqis refused to meet his demands...

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/singleton/

it's cool the troop ships are going straight to afghanistan

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) abruptly canceled a speech meant to lay out the GOP’s plans to address income inequality. . . . Cantor had signed up for a “selected audience.”

too bad. cantor's speech was titled "we are the 1%."

Yeah, I have to admit that The first two or three times i read "Eric cantor's speech on income inequality", I just assumed it was to be a speech talking about how great it is.

ok so the republican candidate that said women should be "whores in the bedroom"

http://gawker.com/5852019/women-should-be-a-whore-in-the-bedroom-says-gop-candidate

reihan salam quasi-defended the guy... and the guy himself commented

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/281005/phil-mitschs-populism-reihan-salam

lol wut

lolling at the scare-quoted "'only'"

Interesting. I knew Rubio was in the news because of his lying about when his parents emigrated, but I had no idea that the birthers were going after him (or Jindal).

But the wild new turn the birthers have taken should serve as a timely reminder to Republican leaders that they need to push back more forcefully against the angry and the unstable in their ranks.

but... at this point the GOP is 99% angry and unstable

Brings to mind aphorisms about riding tigers.

But the wild new turn the birthers have taken should serve as a timely reminder to Republican leaders that they need to push back more forcefully against the angry and the unstable in their ranks.

^^^^ the sort of columnist who subsists on soda crackers, water, and brotherly love.

Disgusting.

Digby: "What, at this point, is the rationale of the Democratic Party? We'll kill terrorists twice as hard and only slash the safety net half as much? We'll pass the Republican agenda so they don't have to?"

that's been the rationale for 20 years, at least

But now the Dems are doing even better at the killing terrorists part

So the Medicaid savings are going to be used to pay for a Republican goal, easing the tax burden on contractors(but this will likely allow the return of contractor tax evasion that the earlier "burdensome" law was aimed at)

from politico
The companion bill changes eligibility requirements for Medicaid that allowed some higher-income earners to qualify for the health care program for the poor.

the Medicaid measure was “somewhat controversial.” That’s because some House Democrats believe that the savings from changing the Medicaid requirements should be used to pay for other health programs.

“There’s been a long-standing concern in the Democratic Caucus about the pay-fors, as they relate to Medicare and Medicaid, and that is problematic,” added Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who chairs the House Democratic Caucus.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66847.html

We'll pass the Republican agenda so they don't have to?

This is exactly the Democratic party. You get to call it a victory if your guy did it.

I don't really see the problem with either of these provisions. Just because the GOP is for it doesn't mean it's bad.

will be surprised if that passes the Senate anyway

Just because the GOP is for it doesn't mean it's bad.

Yes it's bad.

It's more "austerity."

and, worse, it's not the GOP idea – it's the president's.

How is a tax-withholding break paid for buy cutting Medicaid benefits to "high-income" recipients an austerity measure? It seems at worst to be neutral and arguably expansionary.

The 3% withholding provision on government contracts was put in place by . . . George W. Bush. If even W thought it was better to get that tax money right off the top, and got it through Congress, what the hell is Obama thinking?

xp "arguably expansionary?" When have ANY of these tax cuts -- which is, in effect, what it is -- proven to be expansionary?

I think Keynesian economics would say that deficit-increasing tax cuts are expansionary. Deficit-neutral tax cuts are probably neutral, although the distribution matters.

Also, I'm with the Dems who object on the grounds that if the Medicaid change is correct, then the savings from that should be used to bolster other aspects of Medicaid and health-related functions, not to pay for a Republican proposed change to help contractors.

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

Bring up this question every time someone asks "What does the OWS want?"

My go to is "since when is it the job of students to solve student debt, or the unemployed to propose policy solutions for unemployment? We elect people to do this job for us, but they won't because they're at the beck and call of dollar bills. Our job is to recognize when enough is enough."

More Obama psychoanalysis.

so at what point does this reach critical mass?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/26/shock_poll_americans_want_to_tax_the_rich_corporations.html

On WTOP, an all-news non-NPR commercial radio station in Washington DC, the oil industry keeps running ads against going back to the "failed policy" of taxing energy creators...

I'm guessing that Republican congressmen (and Mary Landrieu and other blue dog Dems) listen to these ads and nod their heads in agreement.

No Shockah--Baucus on Supercommittee offers 'grand bargain' like deal with some ugly cuts and of course the Republicans don't accept it because it includes tax and stimulus as well.

Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, offered to cut as much as $500 billion from Medicare and other health programs and to adopt a less generous measure of inflation to calculate Social Security benefits, according to aides familiar with the talks. He also called for as much as $300 billion in new measures aimed at stimulating the flagging economy.

Republicans quickly rejected that offer. Senior aides called the tax and stimulus provisions un­acceptable. The GOP countered Wednesday with its own plan to tame the debt without raising taxes, leaving the two sides apparently stuck on the same issues that have stymied action for months.

But after weeks of aimless floundering by the “supercommittee,” the exchange marked the beginning of a more serious phase that will determine whether lawmakers can break that political impasse.

Neither side seemed certain where the path would lead. Republicans questioned the timing of the Democratic offer, which came nearly two months after the talks began. Some suggested that Democrats were trying to paint themselves as reasonable negotiators in anticipation that the talks will ultimately fail.

“You have to wonder if this is about positioning instead of about moving to resolution,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), a panel member who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) broached the idea of a “grand bargain” on taxes and entitlements in a meeting last week with Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Democratic leadership aides said the goal was to determine whether such a deal could come together.

“This was a good-faith effort to put something on the table to see what kind of response we would get,” said one senior Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks.

But Boehner and McConnell have been steadfast in their refusal to consider tax increases big enough to persuade Democrats to throw their weight behind reductions to popular social programs.

“Their offer is a joke,” said one Democrat with knowledge of the GOP counter-proposal. “Democrats came to the table with an offer that had serious skin in the game for both parties. Rather than offering real solutions, Republicans are just doing more of the same posturing they do every time they walk away from efforts to constructively tackle this crisis.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cbo-agency-budgets-at-lowest-levels-since-2002/2011/10/26/gIQAk8ZyIM_story.html?hpid=z4

New York Times discover that water is wet: Black Voters' Support for Obama is Steady and Strong

Abdul Malik seems the prototype of a disenchanted Barack Obama voter.

Mr. Malik, 48, lost his job as a grading and landscape worker a year and a half ago, another victim of the housing bust. Since then, he has been searching for something, anything, to help make ends meet.

Yet, Mr. Malik, who is black, says he has every intention of again voting for President Obama next year. So does Bobby Hart, 46, a former construction worker here. And Dorothy Artis of Greensboro, N.C., who is looking for a job to help support her grandchildren while her daughter is deployed in Kuwait. And Larry Bennett, who worked for 27 years at Cooper Industries before he lost his job when his division moved out of state.

. . . Mr. Obama’s support among African-Americans appears strikingly strong, even among many who are out of work, who might be expected to complain the loudest.

In a recent Pew Research Center poll, black voters preferred Mr. Obama 95 percent to 3 percent over Mitt Romney, “which is at least the margin he got in 2008,” said Michael Dimock, associate director for research at Pew. “There’s no erosion at all.”

Even more noteworthy, less than 10 percent of black voters in a New York Times/CBS News survey taken last month said that Mr. Obama had failed to meet their expectations as president, while nearly 3 in 10 said he had exceeded expectations. Among nonblack voters, 4 in 10 said he performed worse than expected, while only 5 percent said he had done better.

For many African-Americans, the main reason to support Mr. Obama is easy to cite. They argue that the modern Republican Party protects the rich at the expense of the poor, is hostile to social programs and thinks the way to fix the economy is solely through a trickle-down approach.

“We already know what the Republican Party is offering,” said Mr. Bennett, 57, the former Cooper Industries employee, a plant supervisor before he lost his job. “And we don’t want that.”

Mr. Hart said, “Look at the choice we got with those Republicans.”

you can see how 'huh people haven't decided to throw their chips on romney instead' is diff from 'how to turn out the unmotivated vote' tho

oh tpm

A former judge in Oklahoma has lost his pension after he was convicted of indecent exposure for using a penis pump under his robes during trials.

geez is William Burroughs writing for TPM now

History of Presidential Coattails Points to Republicans Keeping the House

xpost That NYTimes piece perplexed me at first, too, but it's about actually getting those black supporters of Obama to go to the polls and vote.

I recoil instinctively from unanimity but I understand the hope for hope.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/why_all_of_west_virginia_now_hates_mitch_mcconnell/

what the fuck is this shit about

jesus i hate college athletics. shut them all down. fuiud

"it's the economy, stupid! now excuse me while I manipulate football conferences"

In America, those are not mutually exclusive.

What counts as a victory for Dems and the White House in this climate:

Gov. Jerry Brown scored a budget win Thursday as the Obama administration approved a major share of Medi-Cal cuts that health care providers and patient advocates said would cut off medical access to the state's most vulnerable residents.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Soros.jpg

lol at "International Progressive Networks" in scare quotes near the upper-right corner

Is that just because Matt Browne's page on Center for American Progress starts off with the "Matt Browne is a Visiting Fellow at American Progress, working on building trans-Atlantic and international progressive networks and studying trans-Atlantic policy issues"?

Communism is only scary to old people.

though tbf to young righties rather than being 'scary' its 'a joke'

there's 2 inches of slush in NYC, guys, start a new thread

Soto, you started this thread, so I will be fine with you starting the new one

Mods....?