On Tactics
Unions suffered a major defeat in Wisconsin this week, as the Republican legislature figured out a parliamentary maneuver which allowed them to pass a Union-busting bill even without the Democrats present to form a quorum in the upper house. In an unrelated story, two of the highest-ranking officials from National Public Radio stepped down from their jobs in the wake of yet another "gotcha" video from the guy who took down ACORN. Democrats, in both cases, are loudly decrying the political tactics used. But they really shouldn't be, because the tactics themselves are neutral (even though their use was -- as is almost always the case -- extremely partisan).
To be fair, Democrats and Republicans alike are prone to doing this sort of thing. Both using political tactics such as these, and decrying them as being somehow "unfair." There's no monopoly by either party on this type of political hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy is the right word to use. Unless you'd prefer "political moral relativism of the worst kind," which is slightly more accurate but a little wordy. Either way, the equation reads: "This sort of thing is just fine when our side uses it, but downright evil when the other side does the same thing."
Let's take the first case -- Wisconsin. Republicans, led by the new Republican governor, decided to strip Unions of almost all their bargaining rights. They thought they could do so with impunity, because they had a majority in both houses of their state legislature. Democrats from the state senate decamped to the state next door. This denied the Republicans a "quorum," or enough senators present to legally hold a vote on budget issues. Demonstrations swelled in Madison, as the Left finally woke up and took to the streets to demand their rights not be trampled upon. Republicans then made a countermove by dividing the bill into two -- one which contained all the budget issues, and one separate part which just stripped the Unions of their rights. They then passed the Union-busting bill, because there was no quorum requirement which prevented them from doing so. Assumably, their lower house will pass this bill and the governor will sign it.
This, of course, has enraged Democrats, Unions, and the Left in general. As it jolly well should -- this is a real stinker of a bill. More power to the Badger State Left, and all of that.
But the tactics the Republicans used to do an end-run around the quorum requirement are no more evil (or "good" for that matter) than the Democrats who fled the state to prevent the vote in the first place. If this sends you into howls of Lefty rage, then consider how Righties felt about the methods used to pass the signature Democratic healthcare reform legislation on the federal level, last year. Parliamentary maneuvering can work both ways, in other words. It always enrages the other side, I fully admit, but in either case it is just as valid. These rules exist for a reason, even when your objective is to circumvent them using ever-more-obscure rules.
Do I like what just happened in Wisconsin? No. No, I do not. Do I agree with the Republican governor? Not in the slightest. Do I want to see the Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature pay a very heavy political price for what they just did? Oh, definitely. But even having said all of that, I cannot condemn them for how they managed to pass their bill.
Let's just have a quick reality check. I'm going to pause here, so that all of the Righties who went ballistic in their condemnations of "reconciliation" or any of the other "tricks" Democrats used to pass healthcare reform can denounce the "tricks" the Wisconsin Republicans just used:
[Sound of lone cricket: "Reep... reep CHEEP... reep...."]
What? No apoplexy from the Right over parliamentary maneuvers? No red-in-the-face tirades? Well... surprise, surprise.
To be fair, that's exactly the response Congress got from the Left when the Right was screaming to the hills about how "Obamacare" passed. As long as it benefits your particular side, just about any parliamentary wiggling is fair game, and indeed honorable. When it benefits the other side, it is an unprecedented usurpation of something or another. Perspective seems to be key.
I personally defended the Democrats back when they were trying to get their bill through the House and the Senate using any means necessary. At the time (without taking the trouble to look it up), I said that both sides do this sort of thing all the time, and that it was no big deal. But to be morally consistent, I cannot now condemn the Wisconsin legislature for performing a similar maneuver. My position has remained unchanged: both sides do this sort of thing all the time, and it is silly to get bent out of shape over the tactic itself.
The case of secretly videotaping a "sting" operation on an organization doesn't fall into the same realm, really, but in one way it is similar. How many Lefties who are now enraged at the troublemaker who brought down ACORN and seems well on his way to killing public financing of NPR thoroughly enjoy themselves a good Michael Moore movie? You can argue that these aren't equivalent, that Michael Moore is more upfront about who he is and who he is representing, which is a fair point. But the tactic really isn't that different -- both are trying to make an organization they're against look like buffoons, for public consumption. Once again, perspective is key to how any particular person reacts.
My point here is that attacking the tactic doesn't get you very far, no matter what side of the political divide you hail from. "Taking the high road" -- or denouncing the tactic -- and calling for reform of the parliamentary rules or the process or whatever does help politically in terms of turning public opinion against your opponent, but only in a limited fashion. Democrats railing against Republican abuse of the filibuster is a good example -- it's fun to throw such red meat to your base, but it is very hard to actually change this sort of thing in any tangible way (because the status quo for such parliamentary rules is mighty resistant to big changes). Demonizing the tactics used is helpful in firing up your political base, and also has a secondary effect -- showing the opposition that there is indeed a real political price they're going to pay when they use such non-standard tactics. These parliamentary tactics are rare for just this reason -- the voters often recoil from the party using them, if they are perceived as "unfair." Otherwise, such tricks would be used on every single bill. The fact that Democrats didn't successfully make Republicans pay a price in the U.S. Senate for their blatant abuse of the filibuster merely encouraged the Republicans to do so on a regular basis -- for the first time in American history. Most voters don't know that bit about the history, for the precise reason that the Democrats in the Senate never adequately told them. So taking the high road and denouncing the unfairness of the tactic does have some use in the political arena. But only on a secondary level. Especially when the alternative is: "Rolling over, doing nothing, and accepting the political loss." But there is a third option here as well, and it's the best option in the bunch.
Far and away the best method of making your opponents pay a political price for their tactics can be summed up as: "Fight fire with fire." Or, maybe: "All's fair in love, war, and politics." The Wisconsin Unions are already moving forward on this front, collecting signatures to recall as many of the Republican legislators as possible. Remember, in this chess game, the Democrats have already used an unconventional tactic (fleeing the state), and it paid off handsome political dividends as the public rallied to their side. If the public truly is on their side, then pushing forward with recall elections is an eminently reasonable next step. It may not be totally successful (Wisconsin has a very high bar for recalling public officials), but it will indeed make Republicans think twice about what they do from this point on. But whatever the outcome of such efforts, Democrats are already reaping a political windfall in the whole fight. The Unions are energized, they've got the public on their side, and they are white-hot with anger right now. Reminds me of the Tea Party movement, about two years ago (and look where they're at now). If this feeling lasts, it could mean a record Democratic turnout at the polls in the next few Badger State elections. Which may not overturn the bill right away, but would indeed change the face of politics in Wisconsin, no matter who winds up getting recalled.
In terms of the Republican "sting" videos, why can't the Left adopt this tactic for their own purposes? They wouldn't need a whole lot of adaptation, either, since the Left pretty much invented this tactic in the first place. By its rightful name, "political theater" has been a tool in the Left's toolbox for decades now. Perhaps that tool needs to be taken out and sharpened up a bit, since the Right obviously has a new use for such a tool. In fact, the Left scored a crucial victory in the Wisconsin battle by just such a spoofer -- a blogger who called up the governor pretending to be a wealthy Republican donor. There are plenty of opportunities out there for creative Democratic use of this type of political theater, and if the other side is going to fight with fire, Democrats should do so as well -- as hilariously as possible.
Democrats and Labor have suffered a big political loss in Wisconsin this week. But that doesn't have to be the ultimate legacy of the Madison protest movement. For the first time in a long time (since the last big anti-war rallies, really), the Left was marching in the streets once again in political unison. This has energized Democrats far beyond Wisconsin's borders. Their message is a simple one: "See, we told you Republicans would overreach if you put them in office!" Robert Reich has even taken to calling this the forefront of "The People's Party" -- a welcome and necessary counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.
Such a resurgence among the Democratic base is possible. The possibility also exists that this will all soon become yesterday's news, and the average voter will have largely "moved on" the next time an election rolls around. My personal take on it is that the Democrats need to use every tool in the box -- every political tactic at their disposal -- to keep the pressure up, and to keep reminding the public how outside the mainstream the extreme Republican agenda truly is. My main message to the Democrats, the Lefties, and the Unions would be: don't let one tactic stop your momentum, instead use the tactics available to make your point to the public as best you can.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
You can argue that these aren't equivalent, that Michael Moore is more upfront about who he is and who he is representing, which is a fair point. But the tactic really isn't that different -- both are trying to make an organization they're against look like buffoons, for public consumption. Once again, perspective is key to how any particular person reacts.
There is a much better example..
That Lefty insurgent who called and talked to Gov Walker, purporting to be some Righty big wig donor was pretty much the same tactic used by O'Keefe...
The problem with it is that Walker pretty much stayed true to character, embellishing in private what has already been established as his public position..
Contrast that with the NPR sting whereas NPR execs were saying in private what was diametrically opposed to what they were saying in public...
THAT is why the NPR sting was much more effective than the Gov Walker sting...
Michale.....
One of these days, the Republicans will regain a majority in the Senate. Remind me then, and I will stand by everything I've said about the filibuster while the Democrats are in the majority. I will still think then it should be weakened. As things stand, there's no downside to it. It's not a parliamentary tactic. It's just a 60-vote threshold for passing anything. When a bill is voted down 59-41, no one reads from the phone book on the floor of the Senate for hours. There are no cots. There's no bold, risky move. Mr. Smith isn't heroically shaking up the status quo. The bill just got voted down, same as if it had only had 49 votes. That's not a good way to run a legislative chamber. It makes compromise so unfeasible that everyone is better off throwing red meat to their base than actually trying to make good law.
When "deeming" came up, I didn't jump to the conclusion that it's ok. I read about it, and concluded that it was no big deal, just voting on two bills at once. It's a little odd, procedurally, but I don't see how it would skew the process toward bad legislation.
There is no equivalence between left and right. I'm pretty much typical on the left. The audience for Olbermann, Air America, and Michael Moore is tiny. Leftists, by and large, are hypercritical egg-heads who denounce our own side the moment it does anything wrong. "I'm a member of no organized political party: I'm a Democrat."
By contrast, the audience for Rush and his wannabes is huge. Reagan's eleventh commandment stands almost unchallenged, but when right-wingers do speak ill of a fellow Republican extremist, it's not because the Republican extremist was too partisan or hypocritical. It's because the extremist wasn't extreme enough.
Hi Chris:
What sticks out for me more than anything, with respect to this NPR event is the pusillanimous way the organization reacted. I don't think either "Schiller" did anything wrong, other, perhaps, than not vigorously defending themselves. The only reason this O'Keefe pimple has any effect is because our side throws in the towel so easily. The entire Democratic establishment should have loudly and proudly defended ACORN, and the folks at NPR should have likewise defended their folks.
Teabaggers are bigoted tools who are in love with their own rage. Democrats, liberals, need to stop shying away from calling them like they see them. The last time I commented here (the first time, actually) I wrote about the sense of betrayal I feel when Obama and/or other leading Dems show more respect to people that hate us, than they show to us. Same thing here. NPR gained my respect when they, perfectly reasonably, fired Juan Williams. They lost it by their cowering reaction to this non-event.
It has become very clear to me that anyone inside the beltway is either next-to-useless (if they're democratic) or actively malignant (if republican or "libertarian") Republicans serve the rich (corporations and individuals) openly and without shame and Democrats serve the rich, but are conflicted about it.
Victory comes to those who are clear about their values and goals. Republicans are unabashed liars who believe people fall into groups of worthy and unworthy. They move directly forward in their efforts to support those they deem "worthy" white, fake-christian, rich people, and to smash the "unworthy" (everyone else). They use every tool at their disposal to accomplish their objectives.
Democrats face a direct conflict between big donors and the public. They can't reconcile the fundamental conflict and thus continually short-circuit themselves.
People in Wisconsin have demonstrated clearly that to right the wrongs assailing us we really have to do it ourselves - there will be virtually no help from our "leaders" in Washington. The republicans have very successfully used divide and conquer on many levels. Wisconsin has shown the value of all-for-one and one-for-all. The fight ain't over there yet, but Thank God, there IS a fight. For a change, a wonderful change, our side didn't lie down. But the power came from people, good people, who had finally recognized that republicans in power intended to hurt them. And they realized that no one was going to ride up on a white horse and save them. They were going to have to save themselves. We are going to have to save ourselves. That is what Americans need to grasp and internalize.
Meanwhile NPR allows worms like O'Keefe to manipulate it's board. Divided against itself it grows weaker, not stronger. Trying to appease the bubonic plague that is the republican leadership, they will fail. The pubs will defund them anyway. They'll be forced to deal with unavoidable issues from a weaker position. Failed appeasers don't inspire confidence or admiration.
Teabaggers are bigoted tools who are in love with their own rage.
I wonder if you can appreciate the complete irony of your statement, eh? :D
Michale.....
No Michale, it's not ironic. Teabaggers are bigoted tools who are in love with their own rage. This an observation based on absolutely observable actions, signs, and documented statements by these people. Observing rage in someone else doesn't automatically mean the observer is filled with rage. Observing that someone else uses bigoted statements doesn't make the observer bigoted. Any objective reading of the stated beliefs and goals of self-described teabaggers produces lists of completely contradictory and inchoherent positions, most of which are utterly refutable by actual facts.
Now, does their inflammatory and loathsome rhetoric elicit emotional responses in others? Yep. Does it make me despise them? Yep. But I'm reacting to their actions and words, actions and words which are intended to demean and demonize me and others. They are public in their displays and they are public in their monumental hypocrasies.
Do I want to do to them what they want to do to me? No. I just want them to go away. I want them to close their big ugly yaps and leave me alone and stop inflicting their ugliness on the rest of us. But they won't.
People on the left are very live and let live, so long as no harm is being done. People on the right want to jam their views down our throats. After awhile we get tired of it and exhibit anger. I feel most definite anger and plenty of contempt. I'm not God and cannot forgive people who actively try to hurt me. I can strive to forgive, but I will also honestly acknowledge my feelings and reactions. Teabaggers swim in hate - they feed on it and they spew it. The republican leadership actively and deliberately foments hate and uses it to manipulate their extremely foolish and unpleasant followers. The stench emanates from them and I smell it. I don't have to pretend that it doesn't stink.
It sounds like you are describing the Hysterical Left as much as the Hysterical Right..
Every accusation you hurl at the Right has been documented as also coming from the Left.. Every complaint you have against the Right has also come from the Left...
Bigotry?? Check
Hatred?? Check
Disgusting Accusations?? Check
Comparisons to Hitler?? Check
Foments Hatred?? Check
Fearmongering?? Check
And so on and so on down the list..
Every action I listed not only comes from the Hysterical Right, it also comes from the Hysterical Left...
That's why I called your statement "ironic"... :D
Can't we all just get along? We are all Americans, after all... :D
Michale.....
And now you make the same dreary false-equivalency statements that are always the fall back of the right.
One teabag rally would supply multiples of everything on your list, while you'd have to go through years of material to dredge up various examples of what you cite emanating from the left. Certainly you can find plenty of invective by posters on blogs, which you will equate as having the same impact as Rush Limbaugh or John Boehner, while neglecting to mention the incredible levels of hate speach on right wing blogs. We don't incite people to shoot congresswoman and little girls and judges. We don't plant bombs on parade routes. No one reading DailyKos and commenting that republicans are serial liars are encouraging people to kidnap and shoot state troopers. That all emanates from the right and is the logical extension of an ideology that is based on demonization of the "other".
Today's republicanism is built on lies and depends on ignorance and the pitting of citizens against each other. FOX news is a propaganda outlet whose viewers are objectively misinformed. Republican "leaders" literally change their positions on any issue practically daily - their only goal is to benefit the rich and destroy anyone who stands in the way of that goal.
There is nothing hysterical in my reaction to the curent rightwing's tactics, beliefs or idealogy. It is a valid response to people who want to hurt me and people I love. You might like to excuse it or pretend it isn't as toxic as it is. I won't. I can't do violence to them but I absolutely can despise them and refuse to be terrorized. Teabaggers should be thrilled! They love hate! It's their meat and drink. And it's contagious! They hate me, I hate them! I get to play too! I won't knock one down and step on her head because, while I honor my genuine feelings I also honor my principles. I will not do them violence but I will loath them and despise their works.
Spiritually I see hate as a natural emotion that needs to be recognized, not repressed. The next stop, though, is what you do with it. Hate happens when you feel violated. I feel violated and I believe that feeling is legitimate. I am now expressing my sense of violation. However, I will then move on to engage in constructive actions that use the energy generated by the hate, to accomplish other things. I try not to stew in it, or allow it to corrode me. But I will, when given the opportunity, decry the actions and events that have lead me here.
Teabsggers are fed lies to create an illegitimate sense of violation, and they are enthusiastically encouraged to stew in it. Every day their fears are stoked and hate is fed. A good deal of money, talent and effort is expended to that end. It is indefensible.
Now, does their inflammatory and loathsome rhetoric elicit emotional responses in others?
Hey Paula. I think you hit on it in the above statement.
It's a tactic.
Here's the game. Conservatives have a very strong corporate agenda that they've been pushing through since Reagan.
But their agenda has an image problem. It doesn't look good to be pushing for lower pay, less benefits, outsourcing, and lower corporate taxes. Basically, it doesn't look good if the debate is seen as corporations vs. people.
So they're constantly looking to change the debate. To create new "divides" among people to distract from this class warfare.
Hence, Republicans vs. Democrats. Tea Partiers vs. liberals. Evangelicals vs. atheists. Christians vs. Muslims. Most recently, unions vs. taxpayers.
Meanwhile, what happens? Wall St. banks sneak off with $800 billion in bailouts and are granted ever bigger tax loopholes. Just to name one corporate abuse.
I think the one thing both the Tea Party and liberals get right is their justifiable rage. I think the one thing they both get wrong is who it's directed at.
Cheers
David
Paula and David,
Hear, hear!
Kevin
One teabag rally would supply multiples of everything on your list,
For example??
while you'd have to go through years of material to dredge up various examples of what you cite emanating from the left.
Or one Pro Union Rally in Wisconsin...
We don't incite people to shoot congresswoman and little girls and judges.
Really??? What's with the use of cross hairs on all the Lefty websites and from the DNCC, etc etc...
There is nothing hysterical in my reaction to the curent rightwing's tactics, beliefs or idealogy.
It's nothing BUT hysteria...
You pull a few out of context statements here and a few nutballs there and you paint an entire group of people with it..
The very DEFINITION of bigotry...
Teabsggers are fed lies to create an illegitimate sense of violation, and they are enthusiastically encouraged to stew in it. Every day their fears are stoked and hate is fed. A good deal of money, talent and effort is expended to that end. It is indefensible.
Ya know, it's rather funny..
If you were to replace "teabaggers" and "republicans" with "liberals" and "progressives", your statements would be as equally factual as they are now...
It's nothing but pure unadulterated bigotry... You castigate the Right for the very same actions and attitudes that are displayed by the Left..
For every incident you post that happens from the Right, I can post an equally disgusting action from the Left..
There really is no difference between the Hysterical Left and the Hysterical Right..
Both use the same methods to achieve the same goals..
Imposition of their respective ideology...
And, just for the record.. The scumbag who shot Gabby Giffords was a liberal...
Just thought you would like to know that...
Iddn't it annoying how pesky facts can be?? :D
Michale.....
Hi David:
I think the one thing both the Tea Party and liberals get right is their justifiable rage. I think the one thing they both get wrong is who it's directed at.
Just FYI, I agree with you completely re: the corporate agenda driving the repubs and just want to clarify that while I am expressing a lot of anger towards the Teabaggers it is because I see them as being willing dupes, willing tools, in the above mentioned corporate agenda. But you are right that it is the corporate agenda that lies behind it all, as Wisconsin so clearly demonstrates.
18 Republican senators from Wisconsin report getting death threats after passing bill to end collective bargaining for most public workers
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20110311/WDH0101/303110067/Multimedia-18-GOP-senators-report-getting-death-threats?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Oh yes.. The Liberal Left is the epitome of calm, cool and collected... :^/
"I have been calm and cool, but I have never been collected.. I have been collected FROM, but I have never been collected."
-George Carlin
:D
Michale.....
Ahh Yes... The big old evil "corporate agenda"...
It's funny..
When those from the Right talk about the extremists or terrorists "agenda", the Left pooh poohs it away as "fear mongering"...
But it's perfectly OK for the Left to talk about the "corporate agenda" and try to scare people with it...
Just one more example of the Left acting exactly like the Right... :D
Michale.....
You know what, Michale? I'll bet those threats are total plants. Righties rush out and do that kind of thing so that they can point fingers and say "you're just as bad!" I remember during the HCR debate Eric Cantor claimed his office was shot at and the press ran with it until the police released their report saying a bullet was found laying on a window sill and there re was no evidence of ANYTHING. Palin claims she gets threats and provides no evidence. Meanwhile the FBI arrests rightwingers who are actively plotting murder.
I condemn death threats. If a perp is identified and charged I will again reiterate my condemnation. But let's just wait and see if there actually is one.
Let's not also forget Mark William's public plotting to try to "infiltrate" the protests in WI with the intention of acting violent and nasty in an effort to counteract the fact that the protests had been so peaceful.
Let's also not forget that rightwingers pay actors to call in to their talk shows. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to learn that YOU are a paid shill. I could sort of respect that. Whores at least are honest about what they do. If you make the sort of arguments you make out of conviction, well, that's just sad.
The big old evil "corporate agenda".
You can read about it yourself if you'd like, Michale.
http://www.uschamber.com/reports/impact-state-employment-policies-job-growth-50-state-review
Here's Scott Walker's plan. Straight from the mouth of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Its the same as John Kasich's plan in Ohio. Its the same as Mitch Daniel's plan in Indiana. And its the same as John Boehner's plan in Congress.
It's also the same crap that many Democrats are talking about even though not so publicly.
It goes like this: Cut benefits to people, deregulate, provide tax breaks to corporations, and outsource areas of the government like education.
Sure looks a lot like a corporate agenda to me.
You can keep playing the Right vs. Left game though if you want!
Cheers
-David
You know what, Michale? I'll bet those threats are total plants.
Really??
So, you are saying that no one one the Left would EVER issue death threats???
Com'on... A quick Google will prove that wrong...
Righties rush out and do that kind of thing so that they can point fingers and say "you're just as bad!" I remember during the HCR debate Eric Cantor claimed his office was shot at and the press ran with it until the police released their report saying a bullet was found laying on a window sill and there re was no evidence of ANYTHING. Palin claims she gets threats and provides no evidence. Meanwhile the FBI arrests rightwingers who are actively plotting murder.
And, of course, YOU can prove that, right?? :D
You decry the Right as "not having any evidence"...
Where is the evidence of your claims?
I'll point out again that the scumbag who gunned down Gabby Giffords was a liberal...
Do you really want to go tit for tat as far as violent acts committed by the Left and the Right??
Because I'll be happy to oblige ya... :D
Let's not also forget Mark William's public plotting to try to "infiltrate" the protests in WI with the intention of acting violent and nasty in an effort to counteract the fact that the protests had been so peaceful.
As opposed to the MoveOn.org scumbags who bragged about infiltrating Tea Party gatherings, holding Pro-Hitler and Pro-Nazi signs...
Fact is, most of your Right Wing demonstrations are free of violence and arrests.. But I can point to hundreds of Left Wing protests where the property damage was in the millions and arrests were in the hundreds...
Let's also not forget that rightwingers pay actors to call in to their talk shows. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to learn that YOU are a paid shill.
That sounds like something a Right Winger would say... :D
Fact is, I am a registered NPA... That means No Political Affiliation..
Unlike you, I am not enslaved by any party dogma or ideology...
Which leaves me free to point out how the Hysterical Left and the Hysterical Right are equally frak'ed in the heads... :D
Michale.....
David,
Sure looks a lot like a corporate agenda to me.
And the terrorist's agenda sure looks like a terrorists agenda to me...
So explain to me why one agenda is "fear mongering" and the other agenda is not..
Oh wait.. Because yours is "factual" and the other isn't?? :D
"Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals"
-Yarnek, STAR TREK The Savage Curtain
If one is fear mongering, the other is fear mongering...
It's really that simple...
Michale.....
In fact, wouldn't surprise me to learn that YOU are a paid shill. I could sort of respect that. Whores at least are honest about what they do. If you make the sort of arguments you make out of conviction, well, that's just sad.
Whoa, Paula. I'll vouch for, Michale. While he may like to stir the pot, he's not a paid shill.
We differ on a lot of things, but I know he argues the way he does because he thinks its what's best. His concern for our country is as genuine as anyone I've ever met.
So please, Paula. Michale's not your enemy.
Best
-David
Michale:
You are a poor liar, but a liar nonetheless. Whether paid or or not, not you are a liar. To claim that Gabby's shooter was a liberal is the dead givaway that you're a dittohead and NOT "NPA". To characterize Moveon people as scumbags reveals the same. You're just spewing the usual right-wing crap. An "NPA" might conceivably be able to look at objective evidence and develop their own opinion and defend those opinions using real arguments rather than standard issue repub talking points, but you can't.
Perhaps I'm being unfair. It COULD he that you actually believe the exact same things that teabaggers do, but don't consider yourself a teabagger. That would just mean that you are self-deceptive. It could be that you don't want to admit that the repub party has no morality anymore, no moral core, so you deny being one while still being one. Lots of pubs in your shoes. They just don't want to admit that they are racist cowards with liars for leaders. Poor pubbies.
I can't read your mind or know what's in your heart. But what you write is just sad, if sincere, and just cynical bull if you're a paid liar.
Hey David:
I would find your words a lot more believeable if he hadn't thrown in the Gabby Gifford's shooter was a liberal. That was pure dittohead teabagger nonsense which they tried trotting out within a few days of the shooting, basing it on the man's list of favorite books. It made the usual rightwing rounds in the usual rightwing media outlets and is only repeated by the usual rightwing suspects.
If he actually has any concern for this country he needs to use actual critical thinking and stop regurgitating rightwing lies. He claims to be "above" the hysterical right and left and proceeds to use hysterical right talking points. Which means he's lying to himself, or us, or both.
And the terrorist's agenda sure looks like a terrorists agenda to me.
So explain to me why one agenda is "fear mongering" and the other agenda is not.
Ok. This is a good question, Michale. Harder than I thought it would be.
Let's start with the definition. Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end.
So technically, fear mongering covers a lot of ground.
"Don't go out into the street or you'll get killed!" is technically fear mongering according to the definition.
Almost all pundrity would technically fall under the definition as well.
I think I would make a distinction between trying to inform and trying to scare/manipulate.
In the case of that U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, I think it helps to know what Scott Walker's plan are. He certainly didn't mention any of these when running for office.
Its very similar to what, I believe, you would say about Obama and healthcare. He ran on "change", he gave us healthcare reform.
Fear mongering, on the other hand, is taking something like 9/11 and the threat of it happening again, and using it for another political purpose. Say ... invading Iraq.
Fear mongering would be turning the Homeland Security alert up to orange to distract from the economy.
Fear mongering is talking about how the financial firms on Wall St. are "too big to fail" to get Congress to pass a $800 billion bailout.
It's a tough distinction though. A lot trickier than I thought it would be. Anyone else, feel free to chime in. To me, the difference is bringing to light vs. blowing out of proportion in order to achieve another political end.
I will henceforth be more careful with using this term because I think I may have misused it in the past.
-David
He claims to be "above" the hysterical right and left and proceeds to use hysterical right talking points. Which means he's lying to himself, or us, or both.
I used to think something similar, Paula. In my opinion, Michale does lean more right than left, but he has an independent streak which will surprise you.
I'd say he reads a lot and is very passionate about arguing his points. So he reads everything to find arguments to support his views. All of which I respect.
You'll also find if you get to know him better, that he's got a really good sense of humor (I think he has to to put up w/ us on this site sometimes because he's in the minority :)
Cheers
-David
David:
"It's a tough distinction though. A lot trickier than I thought it would be. Anyone else, feel free to chime in. To me, the difference is bringing to light vs. blowing out of proportion in order to achieve another political end."
Now that entire post was a sincere effort to make an argument. Well done.
Paula,
To claim that Gabby's shooter was a liberal is the dead givaway that you're a dittohead and NOT "NPA"
Jared Lee Loughren has been described by many friends as "quite liberal", "left wing" and a "liberal pothead"..
These are the facts....
I can't read your mind or know what's in your heart. But what you write is just sad, if sincere, and just cynical bull if you're a paid liar
Actually, I am a simple soldier, a man who has served in two branches of the US Armed Forces (USAF and US Army during Desert Storm). I see things very clearly because I don't have to filter what I see thru Democrat or Republican goggles..
In social issues, I am quite liberal.. My lovely wife of 29 years and I lead a very... ahem... hedonistic lifestyle that brings us in close contact with other very liberal minded people..
However, having served in the US Military and been quite involved in LEO and CT operations for the past two decades, I have a decidedly conservative outlook in areas of national security, self-defense and Law Enforcement..
I completely understand why you would lash out as you have...
Here you are faced with a completely objective person who prizes facts above all else.. It's a far cry from other blogs you have participated in, I am sure...
Rest assured though, that I always have sources to back up what I say.. If I state it's been reported from several different sources that Gifford's assassin was a Left Wing pothead, you can bet that the facts back this up...
If I state that the Hysterical Left is as violent as bigoted and as irrational as the Hysterical Right, you can rest assured that the facts show this...
I hope you stick around CW.COM enough that logic and rational discourse rub off on you... You sound like someone that I would enjoy sparring with... :D
David,
That's what I like about most people here.. They don't "shoot from the hip" but actually think about the answers they give..
You acknowledge my point perfectly..
Fear Mongering can be defined as over emphasizing a peril so as to sway a particular person or group to a particular point of view...
When you say that Corporations are bent on national and world domination, that could be construed as fear mongering...
When I say that we must be ever vigilant against Muslim extremists so as to prevent another 9/11, that could be construed as fear mongering..
The fact that you are wrong and I am right is irrelevant.. :D
Michale.....
David:
It's nice that Michale has a friend. To gain my respect he will have to eschew right wing talking points, period. As soon as one is used it betrays someone who is not, in fact, thinking for themselves, nor one who is capable of evaluating their sources.
There is a gigantic difference between what used to be known as conservative idealogies, and right wing talking points. If he wants to make an argument for "fiscal conservatism" for instance, he HAS to admit that the HCR bill would actually reduce the deficit, for instance. He has to respect the work that DID go into it and recognize that is one of the things the HCR bill did (or could, when fully enacted) accomplish. I'm one of those who believes the bill didn't go far enough but I do recognize what IT IS intended to do and what the CBO scores were.
But the minute a self-proclaimed conservative starts talking about the deficit or healthcare or fiscal conservatism but then wants to rescind the bill - without replacing it with something else that solved the problems it actually does solve - then they have lost all credibility. That is what right wingers do - they claim something that sounds good, and proceed to do the opposite.
And you are judged by the company you keep. He uses rightwing talking points.
You say he reads everything to find arguments to support his view. So he claims the Giffords shooter was a liberal because he read it somewhere? And I can read that the earth is flat and because someone wrote it somewhere I can use that as a compelling argument?
That means he has a position: for every righty lunatic there's a lefty, then goes hunting for "evidence" to support the position, rather than looking a what people are actually doing and saying and recognizing that loonies on the right are not comparable to progressives or liberals on the left. They just aren't.
If he can't tell the difference he needs to take a class in critical thinking.
Paula,
You say he reads everything to find arguments to support his view. So he claims the Giffords shooter was a liberal because he read it somewhere?
I read it from several "somewheres"....
Documented and eyewitness testimony from multiple sources from eyewitnesses who have first hand knowledge..
Where did you learn that Loughren WASN'T a liberal??
Because someone on Firedoglake or Huffpo said so???
Or because, in your mind, no liberal could ever be evil and therefore, Loughren MUST be the product of RightWing talk radio...
You discount ANY facts that dispute your worldview therefore NOTHING you disagree with even exists...
Your's is a self-fulfilling prophecy...
I actually pity that you'll never be able to think for yourself...
Michale.....
In politics, a "liberal" is likely to believe in Single Payer Healthcare with a public option as a fallback. A Democrat might believe in single payer but think it can't happen here while HCR is better than nothing and a start. I have never used drugs but I believe pot should be decriminalized because its a huge waste of money and punishes poor people and people of color punitively while letting white people off with wrist slaps.
But the fact that Laughner smoked pot and was perceived as "liberal" by his friends most certainly did not make his shooting an expression of political liberalism, progressivism or Democratism (to coin a word). He certainly did not make any such claim.
The bomb planting people who were trying to hurt celebrants on MLK day, otoh, were most definitely expressing a rightwing political agenda. To say that the "hysterical left' is as violent as the right is simply, factually wrong. And it shows an adherence to a comforting but false belief that enables sympathetic people to excuse rightwing atrocities by claiming that they are invariably matched by these fictional leftwing atrocities. That's not thinking. That's just repeating words without true thought.
When you say that Corporations are bent on national and world domination, that could be construed as fear mongering.
@Michale
And if this is were what I'm arguing, then you would be correct.
But I don't believe corporations are bent on national and world domination or even that they're inherently bad.
What I'm pointing out is the connections between donations, actions, and what is driving our government. In return for huge donations, our government is following almost exactly the plans laid out by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This may be ok with some people. But I think it wouldn't with many more if they knew about it.
Me personally, I have nothing against the Chamber acting in its own interests or corporations acting in their interests except for the fact that the large imbalance is not doing very nice things to our country (see economic crisis 2008).
There used to be a time when what was good for business, was good for America. But it's no longer true.
I want this to be true again. Which is why I believe we need a more balanced approach from government.
To gain my respect he will have to eschew right wing talking points, period.
@Paula
That seems like a strange quality to look for in a friend :)
You there, no talking points! Or I unfriend you!
I think I'd rather look for someone who likes the same movies or music that I do. Or maybe someone who plays similar sports or games. When it comes to politics or religion, I figure we can always agree to disagree. But at the end of the day, if we both like beer ... let's go have some fun!
Speaking of ... I've got a beer to meet :). Bon weekend, folks!
-David
I see...
So, basically what you are saying is that anyone or anything that says something that is against the Left Wing is wrong... period...
And that anything that goes against the Right Wing is "most defintely expressing a rightwing political agenda"...
WOW...
It must be REALLY nice to live in your world where everything is so black and white..
I have to admit..
I am taken aback...
While I have always maintained that political bigotry exists, I have never seen it so blatantly epitomized in one person...
To you, everything Leftist is the purest of goodness and light....
And, according to you, everything Right is the epitome of evil....
How you can even call yourself an American is beyond me...
I have to unplug for a while to consider such blatant bigotry and prejudice...
Michale.....
Before I unplug for the night, I submit this nice "friendly" letter from the Union in Wisconsin to businesses in Wisconsin...
I'll help you along with this.. You can find such a letter in the dictionary under the word EXTORTION
March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Dear Mr. Ellis:
As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in
Wisconsin. ..
As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.
The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this
request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with
Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.
In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.
Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal.
In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Execuctive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, Prersident
Madison Professional Police Officers Association
So much for the idea that the Left Wing is any different than the Right Wing..
Please feel free to spin this...
Michale
Michale:
Apparently you can't comprehend an argument which may explain why you do it so badly.
I don't know where you came up with:
"So, basically what you are saying is that anyone or anything that says something that is against the Left Wing is wrong... period...
And that anything that goes against the Right Wing is "most defintely expressing a rightwing political agenda"..."
No, you claimed that because people who knew Laughner characterized him as "liberal" meant that you could characterize his shooting as a liberal political statement. There is a difference. You find me the blogs from the political left that are telling their readers to go out and shoot congresspeople. You find me the political leaders on the left who are saying those kinds of things publicly. Serve 'em up. You find me statements by Laughner, claiming that his act was an expression of liberalism or progressivism. It wasn't.
You can't, coz they don't exist. People on the left express anger and they express scorn but they do not attempt to incite violence.
Right wingers apply violent and demonizing rhetoric from top to bottom, daily. Right wing media is conspicuous by it's combination of violence and hate with misinformation.
The MLK bombers were not liberal, progressive or members of the Democratic party. Homegrown militias are composed of dittoheads and outraged republicans/libertarians. Not my fault that they are. Not my choice that they are.
Sorry it bothers you that they are, but there it is.
I've never made a single statement indicating that "everything Leftist is the purest of goodness and light" - you did. You then went on to question my "Americanism". Man, don't you understand that you are speaking right-wing-code when you do that? Evidently not.
Anyway, enjoyed routing you! Always a pleasure to pummel a rightie into submission.
David: he's YOUR friend, not mine. I was saying I'm glad he has a friend in you coz he certainly wasn't going to find one in me. However, much as I cannot respect him, I don't wish that he be alone or friendless. So you help bind up his wounds now that he has retreated the field of battle. I'm the type that would have enforced the Geneva Conventions during war. I suspect he'd be more likely to run an Abu Ghraib type operation, but that's a pure guess and not based on factual data. No doubt you have more confidence in him than I.
Oh, Mickey: the folks in Wisconsin (and all over the US and the world) have a right to boycott companies. This is a nonviolent expression of displeasure, it is a political statement and I absolutely applaud them for engaging in boycotts. In America you have the right to not support businesses that choose to engage in politics. Personally I think that businesses would be a lot better off if they stayed the hell out, and most do. But some don't. They believe they will benefit by buying off politicians. Fine. Then they can un-benefit by having citizens retaliate by not buying their products/services.
Citizens United made it A.O.K. to openly enter the field. Well, then you have to handle what happens. If KOCH brothers get to use their billions to destroy Unions then citizens can respond by boycotting Georgia Pacific products.
The America I grew up in didn't criminalize NOT supporting businesses you don't like. You don't have to buy a mac. You don't have to use Credo Mobile.
So I'll give you this one: left wingers boycott, right wingers boycott. Don't see anything wrong with that personally, but if it bothers you, well, buck up soldier! I'm sure you can handle it if you try!
Paula,
No, you claimed that because people who knew Laughner characterized him as "liberal" meant that you could characterize his shooting as a liberal political statement.
Actually, I claimed nothing of the sort... My statement of fact that Loughner was reported to be a liberal was in response to your utterly outlandish (and still un-backed up) claim that the Right, how did you put it, "incite people to shoot congresswoman and little girls and judges."
At NO time did I state that I thought Loughner was representative of the Left.
However you DID imply that Loughner was representative of the Right and I simply proved you wrong.
Right wingers apply violent and demonizing rhetoric from top to bottom, daily. Right wing media is conspicuous by it's combination of violence and hate with misinformation.
Which is exactly what Left Wingers do as well..
Like I said.. You provide examples of your claims and I will be happy to show examples of the Left doing the exact same thing...
As the rest of your drivel, I must have really gotten to you that you would act so hysterical.. :D
Michale.....
extortion (?k?st????n) — n
the act of securing money, favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail
Just thought I would mention that...
Michale.....
First of all, I'd like to point out that I always said that reconciliation was a legitimate procedure. In fact I said the best thing that could happen was for them to force HCR through and face the backlash in November.
Likewise there's nothing wrong with what the Republicans have done here. However there is one point that needs clearing up. Some people have reported that a quorum is needed to pass a budget bill, therefore what was passed was not a budget bill, therefore "proving" that the bits about unions were not budgetary at all and Gov. Walker lied about that.
This is untrue. Wisconsin only needs a quorum for appropriations, which are only part of a budget bill. The bill that was passed was a budget bill, but didn't require a quorum as it had all appropriations stripped out of it.
Incidentally, FDR was opposed to public sector unions. He said:
"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives"
Any objective reading of the stated beliefs and goals of self-described teabaggers produces lists of completely contradictory and inchoherent positions
Not like reading any list of beliefs of self-described liberals, of course, many of whom vary on such issues as gun control, abortion and gay rights. Any movement has contradictory and incoherent positions; it's movements where there's hegemony where you have to worry.
You know what, Michale? I'll bet those threats are total plants. Righties rush out and do that kind of thing so that they can point fingers and say "you're just as bad!"
Ahh yes, it's all a conspiracy. You do realise that conspiracy theories, whether on the left, like your statement, or on the right, like birthers, are the hallmark of positions that one cannot defend rationally, right?
Besides, the Wisconsin DOJ is investigating, we'll soon find out if it's true. Of course even if they do find such evidence, you'll probably say that it's all been concocted to cover up a right-wing conspiracy.
To gain my respect he will have to eschew right wing talking points, period. As soon as one is used it betrays someone who is not, in fact, thinking for themselves
And you've used several left-wing talking points. By your logic, then, you're not thinking for yourself either. You've lost all credibility there.
But the minute a self-proclaimed conservative starts talking about the deficit or healthcare or fiscal conservatism but then wants to rescind the bill - without replacing it with something else that solved the problems it actually does solve - then they have lost all credibility.
Michale has stated support for Wyden-Brown, as a way of giving states the opportunity to achieve the same cost-cutting measures in their own way. So now the onus is on you, what major liberal talking point do you not agree with and why? Please teach Michale about critical thinking ;-)
but I believe pot should be decriminalized because its a huge waste of money
I agree. Yet I've still put forward many of the so-called right-wing talking points you decry. So which is it, am I capable of thinking critically (since I'm espousing a view you agree with) or brainwashed by the right wing?
Wow, this generated a lot of heat. If there was any light, though, I missed it in the TLDR.
Mickey:
"Which is exactly what Left Wingers do as well..
Like I said.. You provide examples of your claims and I will be happy to show examples of the Left doing the exact same thing..."
I already provided samples of my claims. FOX News is one sample right there. Rush Limbaughs daily excretions, and the similar hate speech that comes from every rightwing radio voice. Pete King with his hearings that focus on Muslim terrorists while refusing to investigate homegrown terrorists like the 'Sovereign Citizens' Arrested In Alaska For Alleged Plot To Kill Police, Federal Judge (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/sovereign_citizens_arrested_in_alaska_for_alleged_plot_to_kill_police_federal_judge.php) which is one of many "patriot" "militia" groups that exist around the country, like the MLK bomb conspirators. Sarah Palin and her ilks continued references to "second amendment remedies" -- language and imagery that was specifically decried by Gabby Giffords in days before the shooting. Ann Coulter who thinks we should kill muslims and force them to convert to Christianity. Santorum who equates gay men men having sex with animals.
Let's have your list of left wing counterparts.
paula,
welcome to the discussion. i have debated with michale over many months and various issues, so you'll have to take my word as well as david's that he's not the sort of troll you're describing. most of us are not quite as logical or impartial as we think we are.
if you think being a brainwashed blow-hard is unique to the political right, try popping over to the huffpo page on israel - the folks over there echo as much misinformation as anywhere else in existence. or bring up 'Waiting For Superman' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' - two documentaries by the exact same director using the same exact sort of propaganda - was one film good and the other evil? or listen to what Governor Walker says about the union-killing bill in Wisconsin and what President Obama says about last year's healthcare reform, and tell me it's not a nearly identical narrative.
that said, the net-astroturfing that you describe is a major difference in tactics between the right and left; it can be exasperating to be unsure whether you're entering into a debate with someone who honestly disagrees or someone who is paid to lie. however, although shills for the left are less likely to get shillings for their shilling, or explicit training in how to artificially manipulate the discourse, i think many on the left would do the same thing if they had the corporate bankroll that the righties have. here's an article on internet trolling:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations
it's a tough issue to wrap one's mind around, because real people (neither paid nor brainwashed) exist who have some very right-wing beliefs and evidence to support them. some of these beliefs sprout from lies or misconceptions, but others are simply a different perspective on the same set of facts, just as grounded in reality as the beliefs that i or mr. weigant might espouse. part of what i think makes this community great is that we challenge each other to base every opinion in reality, no matter which side the argument favors.
here's hoping you stick with us and join the regular discussions,
~joshua
Paula,
Mickey:
Seriously???
You DO realize that most everyone here actually saw the first run of Star Trek, TOS..
Can you try to ratchet up the maturity level JUST a tad?? :D
FOX News is one sample right there.
Could you be more specific and not rely on Left Wing Talking Points??
Give me an example that YOU personally have read or witnessed that can be verified..
Pete King with his hearings that focus on Muslim terrorists while refusing to investigate homegrown terrorists like the 'Sovereign Citizens' Arrested In Alaska For Alleged Plot To Kill Police, Federal Judge
Could you provide a link to this "Sovereign Citizens" claim??
Could you also substantiate any recent attacks or attempted attacks from sources other than Islamic terrorists that approach the number of recent attacks or attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists...
I'll have to warn you. My bona fides within the CT field are well established.. You'll have to come up with documented facts to support your case that there is a threat larger than the Islamic terrorism threat in the here and now...
Michale.....
Could you provide a link to this "Sovereign Citizens" claim??
Never mind.. I did it myself.. :D
I assume you mean the incident in May of 2010 where 4 LEOs were shot...
First off, that's not a terrorist attack.. Secondly, it's an isolated incident.
But this is quite interesting..
In two incidents in April and May, a Tennessee sovereign citizen, Walter Fitzpatrick III, and a Georgia sovereign citizen, Darren Huff, were arrested in connection with attempts to make “citizens” arrests of various local officials in Monroe County.
Hmmmmmmm
Now WHERE have I heard that before?? Where have I heard that private citizens were taking it upon themselves to try to arrest government officials...
Why, I think it might have been hysterical groups like MoveOn.org and the like...
Thereby, once again, showing beyond any doubt that the Hysterical Left and the Hysterical Right use the same methods to achieve the same goals...
Oh wait.. You said in Alaska...
Five 'Sovereign Citizens' plot to kidnap and kill Alaskan cops
OK, now I think we are on the right track...
Let's look at this incident.
Is there any evidence that this is NOT an isolated or regional specific incident??
While it's true that this IS a domestic terrorist group, it is NOT a threat to our society.. The KKK is a domestic terrorist group, but it's not really a threat to society as a whole, regardless what the Dem Congresscritters tell us...
I see nothing that would indicate that any domestic group rises to the same level of threat that Islamic terrorists do..
Which is not to say that those groups should be ignored or left to their own devices..
Tell ya what.. Why don't we monitor all their communications, tap their phones and go thru their mail.
Would THAT make you happy??? :D
Michale.....
if you think being a brainwashed blow-hard is unique to the political right, try popping over to the huffpo page on israel - the folks over there echo as much misinformation as anywhere else in existence. or bring up 'Waiting For Superman' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' - two documentaries by the exact same director using the same exact sort of propaganda - was one film good and the other evil? or listen to what Governor Walker says about the union-killing bill in Wisconsin and what President Obama says about last year's healthcare reform, and tell me it's not a nearly identical narrative.
And that, my friend, is why I love you, and this space. American politics is very polarised these days, and as someone who really does try to keep up with both sides of any argument, I'm always looking for websites, of both persuasions, that can handle things in a balanced way. This is a great one, and it's easily my first port of call to check out the left-wing viewpoint.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of absolute rubbish on the right-wing too, and I'm actually quicker to dismiss a right-wing blog from my feedreader for racist or homophobic stuff than to dismiss a left-wing blog for annoying me with its "party line" rhetoric. What's great about this space, and a friend that I know who runs a right-of-centre blog like it (where people of opposite sides are welcomed and there's an air of civility), is that we can talk openly, and we often disagree quite strongly, but it never descends into ad hominems.
most of us are not quite as logical or impartial as we think we are.
Exactly. In fact I'd say that whilst I'd like to think everyone here is logical, I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to be truly impartial. We all have biases, they can come from our education, our childhoods, our jobs. And that's not even a bad thing; when you have a space like this we can discuss, bounce stuff off of each other, and often find areas of agreement and a "middle ground".
If politicians were more willing to do that the world would be a better place.
that said, the net-astroturfing that you describe is a major difference in tactics between the right and left; it can be exasperating to be unsure whether you're entering into a debate with someone who honestly disagrees or someone who is paid to lie.
Whilst that may be true (and there's certainly evidence of it), it's such a pity you chose to link to an article by Monbiot, who spouts such utter drivel that it's hard to take even his legitimate criticisms (which his article does highlight) seriously.
most of us are not quite as logical or impartial as we think we are.
Exactly. In fact I'd say that whilst I'd like to think everyone here is logical, I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to be truly impartial.
Well said to both of you. And good to see you back here, Moderate. Where did you disappear to?
Did you have a chance to read Joshua's guest article on education here a while back? Quite good stuff. Here's the link if you missed:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/01/12/guest-column-obama-on-education-a-plus-values-f-minus-policies/
Life got a little crazy, something had to give so I just stopped keeping up with my favourite blogs (didn't have the time). Things are much better now, though.
I'll be sure to take a look at that guest post. Thanks for the link!
Michale:
I put a link in my post about the group in Alaska - but it's clear it wouldn't matter. Just as its a complete evasion to demand a specific link about FOX News - turn it on (which I suspect you do) and listen to the words. Then go out and attempt to verify the various accusations and stated positions of the "personalities" with facts.
You didn't provide any leftwing counterparts. You mentioned something about some MoveOn folks somewhere attempting some citizens arrests. I don't know about the issue but I do know that trying to make a citizens arrest is a far cry from planting very nasty bombs along the parade route on MLK day. If that's the best you can do it entirely proves my point.
You note later that the KKK is a domestic terrorist group but is not a threat to society - and this is where you err. The KKK's entire purpose is to promote a worldview wherein white christian people are viewed as superior; people of color and/or non-christian are inferior, which is bad enough. What is worse is that they believe, or have believed, that beating, torturing, killing those they deem inferior is not only acceptable, but is heroic. Most of the militia groups hold variations of beliefs that boil down to "my people are good, others are bad, I must be able to hurt or kill them". The dehumanization of "the other" invariably leads to bad things and as such is a definite societal threat. Any acceptance of the inferiority of "the other" is unacceptable and insupportable. But the establishment right wing dehumanizes "the other" on a continuous, deliberate, planned basis. Now it's teachers and public union employees. The "degree" may be lesser than a kkk member, but the mechanism is exactly the same. And when people in power make dehumanization "acceptable" they are committing unforgivable crimes against morality and decency.
Similarly the right wing power establishment uses dishonesty as a weapon for political gain. They choose, with full knowledge, to lie to people to gain their ends. They spread demonstrably false memes like Death Panels during HCR and that's only one of the endless litanies of lies that they manufacture and systematically spread. There's no mystery here. This isn't a "conspiracy theory". It's been documented in a number of places that the RNC generates talking points and then sends them to outlets in all forms of media, who then spout them. That's why, within a day, you'll have politicians, FOX News swine, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Drudge, right wing blogs, all saying the same thing. It's coordinated and orchestrated. Frank Luntz is on record many, many times, saying: here's what you need to say - followed by the entire repub machine saying it. It's also been documented numerous times that the vast majority of right wing books are published by one or two publishers - Regnery Press being the primary, and that Regnery purchases their own books in bulk from stores in order to inflate their sales and get them on best seller lists.
You will demand a link to "prove" these assertion. I don't need to give you links. If you're not aware of how the right wing machine works, you're literally not worth "debating". I'm not saying you're not worthwhile as a human being, but I am saying that if you can't recognize the existence of the machine then nothing you say about right versus left in politics has any merit. It's like having someone opine about how to build a house who's never heard of nails, wood, shingles or hammers.
If you think that I think Dems are perfect you are way off base. They have flaws, however, that basically boil down to serving 2 masters: those with the big bucks, and the rest of us. The right has no conflict - they serve those with the big bucks. They also have no conscience (I am speaking of the leaders and operators, not rank and file) and no compunction about using their money to mislead and confuse the public. It is NO coincidence that rightwing hate radio didn't flourish until the Fairness Doctrine was revoked, and it's no coincidence that the Repubs hysterically reject the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. As an exercise in research, google the Fairness Doctrine. See who's for, who's against. Make sure that when you read the scholarly works that are against, that you check to see who funds them. Check who funds them. Follow the money.
Moveon started as a group that wanted Bill Clinton to be sanctioned and for the world to "move on". This was at the point of republican impeachment hysteria, hysteria driven by complete liars/hypocrites like Newt Gingrich. You don't have to believe me when I assert he was a liar and a hypocrite - he has admitted publicly that he was engaged in an extra-marital affair at the time he was waxing sanctimonious about Monica Lewinsky. MoveOn has gone on to be a politically active group. They are open about their positions. Maybe you don't agree with their positions but they aren't liars and they don't spread misinformation. The demonization of MoveOn by the rightwing is their typical bullshit. The fact that you chose MoveOn is another tip that you're a rightie, however much you may claim otherwise. Although, once again, I suppose its possible that you simply can't tell the difference between news sources and their claims.
Republican leaders are at this very moment screaming that they must lower the deficit. In the next breath they are screaming that defense spending is off the table and that we must continue to use tax dollars to subsidize the record-profit-making Oil industry while laying off teachers. When the CBO says their plans will increase the deficit, they blow it off. They like you when you're on their side and hate you when you tell them something they don't want to hear.
The entire leadership lies continuously and without shame. Dems lie some of the time and with shame. I can write an entire treatise about the Dems, but as I said earlier, their failings are different. If you can't tell the difference then, once again, there's no point in attempting a communication. If you accept that one side's massively funded and coordinated misinformation is exactly the same as people in Wisconsin taking part in a perfectly legal boycott, again, there's no point in interacting. Our starting positions are simply too opposed, our entire worldviews too different.
Hi Paula,
You're a new voice here and clearly a liberal after my own heart so I hope you don't mind a couple questions.
What would your goal be if we all acknowledged the existence of this "machine" that you talk about?
For example, would it be that we all agree with you and rise up and destroy this "machine"?
What is it that you want to accomplish?
Best
David
David:
Once you recognize that misinformation is being systematically delivered to you by an entity, you then begin to scrutinize everything that entity claims going forward. You begin seeing the patterns and you stop believing what the entity tells you. That doesn't mean you stop believing everyone all the time. It requires actual careful evaluation of sources.
It's all over the web today that O'Keefe's NPR tape was doctored to change the actual import of what Schiller said. Anyone who's paid any real attention to politics over the last few years knew this was the case the second O'Keefe's connection to the video was announced. He has been fully exposed as a practicing liar in the past and has zero credibility.
The entire right wing operates on a platform of lies and it is important to understand that as a starting point.
Virtually all major media outlets are owned by large corporations. That is an indisputable statement of fact. The result of this has been an inexorable rise in FAIL as far as media is concerned. FOX News is unabashedly repub and is a daily purveyor of rightwing talking points, as well as whatever sheer nonsense they feel like spewing on a given day. But the more insidious crimes are actually being committed by other news outlets, mostly by ommission. What DON"T they report on? Who's "sides" do they represent? There have been numerous studies laying bear the almost 2 to 1 ration of "conservatives" versus anyone else as guests on news shows. Those who supposedly represent the left barely do so - and certainly major constituencies like Labor are not represented at all. (Meanwhile, John McCain is on Sunday news shows week after week...) Furthermore, virtually no news shows actually make clear who their guests are - who pays them, in other words. (This is true of both left and right.) Most of them are either paid directly as employees or contributors to rightwing think tanks and orgs, which are funded by the likes of the Koch brothers and others of that ilk. Others, on both sides of the spectrum (such as it is) are Board Members, Consultants, etc. of corporations and corporate-related organizations. What they are not is people, researchers, for instance, who are seeking the truth or facts. They are not, in other words, "unbiased" voices.
Wisconsin has been a marvelous illustration of these factors at work. Online there has been all kinds of coverage of the events, of the protests and how they've been conducted, etc. But big media has mostly ignored the events, and when paying attention, has been sure to provide the right's views; has relentlessly compared Madison's protesters with Tea Partiers; has downplayed the overall significance and has dutifully made sure we all know that Scott Walker was "just trying to balance the budget", while failing to mention that the unions had given him every concession he wanted financially before this all started.
I consider myself a netroots activist. What separates us from your rank and file Democrat is that we follow events very closely. We are the people that actually read through the HCR bill when it was posted online during it's formation. We followed the debates, the committee hearings and all the rest. We followed the fate of the Public Option from beginning to bitter end and we documented the involvement of lobbyists every step of the way. That's one example.
So what do I want to accomplish?
I want people to have a clear understanding of who is lying, when, and why. From both sides.
Only when people begin to really evaluate what they've been told will they recognize that things are rotten at the roots and fundamental changes have to be enacted. But those changes will not come from the top - we will have to force them through from the bottom.
Once again, Wisconsin may be the driver here. People in Wisconsin have learned that it is all up to them. They've learned that no on in Washington has their back. They've learned that the repubs are actively malignant and the Dems are largely neutral at best and sometimes work hand in hand with the pubs. So they're doing the fight on their own. But many people there have been "activated". They recognize the stirrings of their own power and they realize that united, they can muster a tremendous amount of force. Divided, everyone loses -- except the Koch Brothers of the world.
So I feel it's very important for people to truly figure out who's on their side and who isn't. If you have a problem you cannot possibly solve it if you don't first clearly define what it is and where it came from and why it continues to exist. The whole point of the RW machine is to keep people confused on these points. They want people to focus their ire on their fellow citizens - now it's union workers - not on the fact that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the reasons for stagnant wages.
They want people to be afraid of losing their company provided healthcare, and not focus on the fact that we pay a 30% on average premium for services in this country and yet rank 37th in the world for outcomes. Notice how there were no public hearings during HCR about single payer systems or indeed just alternate systems around the world. Any thinking person was perfectly aware that the stakeholders in the debate would gain no advantage if people had all the facts. They wouldn't even provide the smallest public option because they knew people would ultimately prefer it. It had to be prohibited, and it was.
As long as people are awash in confusion they are afraid and angry. As long as their anger is directed towards others who are in the same boat, those at the top skate onward and upward. People need to understand clearly who and what they should be angry at. Only then can they formulate any kind of effective response.
Paula,
The KKK's entire purpose is to promote a worldview wherein white christian people are viewed as superior; people of color and/or non-christian are inferior, which is bad enough. What is worse is that they believe, or have believed, that beating, torturing, killing those they deem inferior is not only acceptable, but is heroic.
And how successful is the KKK in the here and now???
Sure that's their purpose... They can rant and yell about it until they keel over and die. Hopefully sooner rather than later..
But the last time the KKK was involved in a terrorist attack that left multiple fatalities was in 1963..
If you are truly claiming that the KKK is as much of a domestic terrorist threat as is radical and extremist Muslims, it is clear to me that you are completely and utterly clueless regarding terrorism and terrorists..
This is not an insult. Ignorance is not a sin..
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
As for your disgust for FoxNews and your inability to cite examples, I believe that your's (and the majority of the Left's) hatred of Fox News is actually envy and jealousy...
Time and time again, the Liberals have tried to put forth something that is at least HALF as successful as FNC.. But they always fail and fail miserably.
Why?? Because the American People don't want to listen to people that say how bad and wrong they are...
You claim that the Right is all about hate and, with regards to the Hysterical Right, you are correct..
But the Hysterical Left is also all about hate, as you have amply demonstrated since your debut. I have been NOTHING but civil and polite to you and you have responded with nothing but insults, personal attacks and name-calling. You would fit in quite nicely over at Bob Cesca's or Matt Osburn's blogs because that is all they do over there. Attack and vilify ANYONE who disagrees with the Echo Chamber..
As I pointed out to you above, most people here are of the more intellectual mindset and maturely discuss topics.. While things DO get heated and there IS some acrimony, it usually disappears by the next commentary that CW puts forth... :D
But enough about HOW things are discussed.. Let's get back to actually discussing things.. :D
Similarly the right wing power establishment uses dishonesty as a weapon for political gain.
As does the Left.. One only has to witness the recent downfall of NPR execs to know this is true...
Everything you ascribe to the Hysterical Right is also done by the Hysterical Left.. A point that you simply refuse to see...
Maybe you don't agree with {MoveOn's} positions but they aren't liars and they don't spread misinformation.
"General Betray Us"
'nuff said on THAT... :D
The entire leadership lies continuously and without shame.
As do Democrat leadership...
Obama's promise of transparency that is actually LESS transparent than the Bush Administration is a perfect example..
Don't EVEN get me started on all the lies regarding CrapCare....
Once again, you have not stated ANY accusations against the Hysterical Right that hasn't also come from the Hysterical Left.
That is why I am an NPA.. Because I acknowledge that BOTH political partys use the same methods to achieve the same goals..
You seem to think that one group is worse or better than the other.
You are in error, as the facts clearly show...
Michale.....
It's all over the web today that O'Keefe's NPR tape was doctored to change the actual import of what Schiller said.
"And you can PROVE this, right?? Oh that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day the taught Law at Law School."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
:D
FOX News is unabashedly repub and is a daily purveyor of rightwing talking points, as well as whatever sheer nonsense they feel like spewing on a given day.
And MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NEW YORK TIMES etc etc etc are a "daily purveyor of left wing talking points, as well as whatever sheer nonsense they feel like spewing on a given day.
So, what's your point???
I want people to have a clear understanding of who is lying, when, and why. From both sides.
Yet, you refuse to source ANY examples of this alleged lying.. You lump it all with the statement, "Oh they just lie. Watch it for yourself" without ANY substantiation whatsoever..
That's why it's impossible to understand your perspective.. Because it appears to be based on nothing but political bigotry in all it's hysterical glory...
Michale.....
Because it appears to be based on nothing but political bigotry in all it's hysterical glory...
That should read:
"Because it *appears* to be based on nothing but political bigotry in all it's hysterical glory..."
My bust...
Michale.....
It would probably also help if we define exactly what lying is...
lie
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
I'll accept this one....
Michale.....
while failing to mention that the unions had given him every concession he wanted financially before this all started.
That's not entirely accurate.
The one concession the Union refused to give up was the ability to get back all of the financial concessions once the eyes of the nation were elsewhere..
The Union's thinking was, "Sure, we'll give away all the benefit concessions they want. Because we know that, as long as we have collective bargaining, we will get it all back."
The Union's greed and complicity with their Dem co-conspirators was unmasked..
That's the lesson from Wisconsin.
Here was the situation in Wisconsin:
http://sjfm.us/temp/pged.jpg
THAT sums things up perfectly...
Sorry for all the posts... I am paid by the comment, you see.. :D
Michale....
Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2058601,00.html
And, once again, the Left forgets their own Tuscon Lesson...
Sad....
Michale.....
I want people to have a clear understanding of who is lying, when, and why. From both sides.
Hi Paula,
You've got a pretty big laundry so let me paraphrase a few things: 1) You'd like people to recognize the truth. 2) You'd like people to recognize that the real fight is not with each other.
Both noble and valid goals I share myself.
So bear with me for just a second. Let's assume that Michale is a Republican-paid shill making $.50 a post to stir up the pot with liberals. He's not, but let's just make that assumption. How do you stop this?
Unless I'm missing something, you really can't. There's no law against being a shill and folks are free to make comments about anything they want (moderator approved, that is). So about the best thing you could do in this situation is be nice to the shill and ignore any liberal baiting.
The moment you get mad and lose track of what you were arguing for, the moment you've lost.
Case #2: Michale is not a shill. In this case, there's a real person on the other end of the Interwebs who happens to disagree with you. Here's a few of your options: a) call this person a liar, b) tell them that they are missing the truth, or c) argue your case with the best you can muster while maintaining a sense of humor and remembering that you're talking to a person and that other people may be reading.
I'll let you be the judge, but I think you get where this is going. You said it well when you said "People need to understand clearly who and what they should be angry at."
One of my first steps was recognizing that my fight's not really with Michale. Sure we disagree and like to argue but I now do it more out of fun rather than any frustration on my behalf. Its much more enjoyable :)
I'd also encourage the 3rd goal (which I'm working towards myself) of arguing positively for a desired end, rather than only poking holes. For example, for me, I like to argue for a government that is more in balance - serving the needs of both people and businesses.
This makes it less a back and forth fight, and more of a discussion about ideas. Because if you get into a fight w/ anyone (Republican or Democrat), then it becomes more about not backing down than discussion - aka, no winners, etc.
I say this as friendly advice to help you in our mutually shared goals. Keep fighting the good fight and remember you can always choose to ignore!
-David
David:
You are perfectly correct that I always have the choice to ignore, which will henceforth be my approach to Michale.
With respect to Michale shilling/not shilling, it doesn't matter to me anymore. It's simply hard for me to believe that any purportedly intelligent person would sincerely put forth the sorts of arguments he makes. They're so manifestly weak, circular, etc., that I would rather believe he's doing it for money. But enough said about Michale.
You did me a great favor, asking me what it is I want to accomplish. If you meant, what did I want to accomplish with respect to Michale - at first I wanted to reach the guy. After that I just got aggravated and wanted to insult him. After that I realized, as you note, that those sorts of exchanges are pointless. But not entirely pointless. The fact that there are numbers of Americans who apparently "reason" the way he does, and believe the sort of things he does, hurts my life. They enable the right wing and the rightwing is a malignant force. So I'm not prepared to live and let live with the Michale's of the world. I certainly won't get through the concrete with someone like him, but there is a certain cleansing and feeling of catharsis that happens after a couple of rounds of invective with minds like his.
But then I move on. What was helpful to me re: what did I want to accomplish was that, after submitting my last post it dawned on me that I could really have condensed it all into: What is the Actual Problem? or What are the Actual Problems? That's really what it boils down to. All of the Rightwing and corporate propaganda is wielded to keep people from zeroing in on the actual problems. You can't fix something when you don't know what part is actually broken. I've been casting around for quite awhile, trying to find the essence of why misinformation is so profoundly damaging (separate from the obvious immorality) and there it is. From there I can now create trees of arguments -
So thanks!
Paula,
Democrats face a direct conflict between big donors and the public. They can't reconcile the fundamental conflict and thus continually short-circuit themselves.
I'm guessing that you're pretty conflicted yourself, once you get inside of a voting booth. :)
Paula,
People on the left are very live and let live, so long as no harm is being done. People on the right want to jam their views down our throats.
Did you feel that "Obamacare" was rammed down your throat?
David,
I think the one thing both the Tea Party and liberals get right is their justifiable rage. I think the one thing they both get wrong is who it's directed at.
That was extremely well said ... truer words were never spoken!
David,
Fear mongering is talking about how the financial firms on Wall St. are "too big to fail" to get Congress to pass a $800 billion bailout.
I beg to differ. What do you think would have happened to the world economy if Congress had failed in its second attempt to pass the "$800 billion bailout"? Can we say, Great Depression II ... and then think a bit about where we'd be today without that congressional action?
Liz
I beg to differ. What do you think would have happened to the world economy if Congress had failed in its second attempt to pass the "$800 billion bailout"? Can we say, Great Depression II ... and then think a bit about where we'd be today without that congressional action?
... We would likely be well on our way to a REAL recovery.
I said it then and I'll say it now...
Instead of limping along putting band-aides on a failed system that simply doesn't work the best choice was to let the whole damn thing collapse and then rebuild with a much better system...
For for failure to do that, I blame Bush moreso than Obama.
Michale.....
What do you think would have happened to the world economy if Congress had failed in its second attempt to pass the "$800 billion bailout"? Can we say, Great Depression II ... and then think a bit about where we'd be today without that congressional action?
It's a tough call as its really hard to know what would have happened when all we know is what did happen.
However, and I said the same thing at the time, I don't think we should have rewarded the folks who caused the crisis. I would have given the $800 billion to the banks who did things right and let those who took on too much risk fail.
I also don't believe we really put any long term fixes in place such as breaking up the conflicts of interest (banks and investment firms).
And can you believe no one ... not a single person went to jail for one of the largest ripoffs in history?
Just my two cents, Liz.
-David
David,
It's a tough call as it's really hard to know what would have happened when all we know is what did happen.
Actually, David, that's not a tough call at all. We know what happened when Lehman's was allowed to fail. Just multiply that by a few magnitudes and you can extrapolate with a fair degree of certainty what would have happened.
I know a lot of people think of the "bailout" in terms of rewarding bad behavior. While that is, in fact, essentially what happened that is most decidedly NOT what motivated the actions taken to rescue these big financial institutions. In other words, Wall Street was rescued in order to save Main Street from a fate far worse than what actually happened.
David,
I also don't believe we really put any long term fixes in place such as breaking up the conflicts of interest (banks and investment firms).
And can you believe no one ... not a single person went to jail for one of the largest ripoffs in history?
I’ve been thinking a lot about the whole concept of "too-big-to-fail" and how it should go the way of the dinosaur.
I’ve come up with a new phrase ... "couldn’t POSSIBLY be too big to fail!" ... and I'm wondering how best to go about making that a reality. My question for you is this - do you think that "too big to fail" is primarily a function of the size of financial institutions? Or, could it be that what we really need here is financial regulatory reform that would prevent financial institutions - no matter how big they are - from engaging in behavior deemed too risky for the stability of the system as a whole and an effective resolution authority that would give government the proper tools to wind down failing institutions - no matter how big they are - in an orderly manner and simply allow them to fail?
As far as I understand it, this is precisely what the financial regulation legislation recently passed - which, by the way, was merely the first step toward a new financial regulatory regime - is supposed to do.
Personlly, I'm not convinced that it's such a great idea to break up the banks/investment firms ... so long as the regulations are appropriate. Cananda has more that its fair share, based on population, of the worlds largest financial institutions and NONE of our banks even came close to failing during this financial crisis. I would argue, therefore, that the answer lies in the quality of regulation, not in the size or complexity of the financial institution.
Of course, if Geithner et al. had a little more support from the folks on Main Street for what he wanted to get through Congress in terms of financial regulation, then the folks on Main Street might have had an even better package of reforms than what actually passed in congress. Just my two cents, David. :)
Oh, and about the perp walk ... how long are the statutes of limitation on these sorts of things, hmmm? And, do you know what the DoJ is doing in this regard? I'll have to look into that ...
Or, could it be that what we really need here is financial regulatory reform that would prevent financial institutions - no matter how big they are - from engaging in behavior deemed too risky for the stability of the system?
You might be right on this one. Time, I guess, will tell.
What I do know is that the regulations which were in place since the Depression seemed to do a pretty good job at stability. Until they were repealed.
I know a lot of people think of the "bailout" in terms of rewarding bad behavior.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... :). Ok, ok. I know you're not disputing this. Perhaps its because I was just reading about Gilbert Gottried (voice of the AFLAC duck).
In other words, Wall Street was rescued in order to save Main Street from a fate far worse than what actually happened.
Its a nice narrative, but I just don't buy it. I believe the banks were bailed out because of their influence.
I say this because there were alternatives that would have let the at-risk banks fail while not letting the country fail.
Yet our government never pressed for any of these alternatives. They went about this the same way they went about the Iraq War. They only presented 2 options. 1) Do nothing and risk the next Great Depression or 2) Hand $800 billion over to the failing banks.
That's why I think it's a good example of "fear mongering". Not because we weren't at risk, but because I think there were other options which would have prevented a Depression. They used the fear to get a result for their donors.
$800 billion could have been used in other ways to fix the economy.
Oh, and about the perp walk ... how long are the statutes of limitation on these sorts of things, hmmm?
Any bets on this? I'm willing to put down a couple million quatloos no one ever sees any jail time.
Of course, if Geithner et al. had a little more support from the folks on Main Street for what he wanted to get through Congress in terms of financial regulation, then the folks on Main Street might have had an even better package of reforms than what actually passed in congress.
I'll give Mr. Geithner credit for doing a good job within limitations.
I just find it hard to buy that he would have done more if he'd of somehow gotten more support from the American people. Are there any polls that show lack of support for Wall Street reform?
Here's one from last year shows over 60% support for reform (down 11% from the previous year) - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36343.html
I can tell you who didn't support Wall Street reform. Some folks in New York who write some pretty big checks ...
Cheers
-David
David,
I say this because there were alternatives that would have let the at-risk banks fail while not letting the country fail.
Oh, I'd like to hear all about those alternatives. You know, how and the why these alternatives would have succeeded in letting the at-risk multi-national financial institutional giants like AIGFP fail while not letting the entire global financial system collapse, let alone the country.
David,
Any bets on this? I'm willing to put down a couple million quatloos no one ever sees any jail time.
I'll see your couple million quatloos and raise you another ... ah, let's say another half million. And, I'll wager that it'll happen before the end of the second term of Obama/Biden/Geithner ... I'm assuming that the three amigos will be in it for the duration.:)
David,
I'll give Mr. Geithner credit for doing a good job within limitations.
I just find it hard to buy that he would have done more if he'd of somehow gotten more support from the American people. Are there any polls that show lack of support for Wall Street reform?
Well, having closely - and, I do mean closely - followed ALL of Geithner's many days of testimony before a variety of congressional hearings, and his infinitely informative and lengthy exchanges with committee members, I can tell you, without any hesitation or mental reservation (that's a private joke ... heh) that Secretary Geithner supported a stronger set of regulations and reforms than which was passed by congress. He did, however, support what was passed. And, we have to remember that what passed was just the beginning of the fin-reg process, the most important part of which is now being studied and that is the all-important writing of the rules.
Don't get me started on polls regarding support for financial reform! The problem here is that most Americans think of Geithner as the devil-incarnate, more or less, and so any reform with his name attached is tantamount to a corporate takeover of America. In other words, polls on this subject simpley have no credibiliy as they are based primarily on ill-informed opinion.
And, I'll wager that it'll happen before the end of the second term of Obama/Biden/Geithner ... I'm assuming that the three amigos will be in it for the duration.:)
Heheheh. It's a bet I'd be happy to lose! :)
another gem from bill day:
http://c0389161.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/dyn/str_strip/358234.full.gif
NYpoet,
As much as I disagree with the sentiment, I have to admit..
"I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo waaat!!"
-Larry The Cable Guy
Michale.....
That's right! A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have.
~Roger Rabbit
What have we here??
2 ex-Dem leaders charged in fake tea party scheme
Two former high-ranking members of the Oakland County Democratic Party are facing various election corruption charges in a bogus tea party scheme, Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper and County Sheriff Michael Bouchard announced Wednesday.
....alleged forging of documents and putting people up for political office without their involvement — including at least one "candidate" who told investigators he had no knowledge that he was on the ballot until notified — is criminal.
http://detnews.com/article/20110317/METRO02/103170380/1409/2-ex-Dem-leaders-charged-in-fake-tea-party-scheme
Oh yes.. Democrats are soooooo much more different than Republicans..
{/sarcasm}
:D
Michale.....