Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Is it the partisanship that offends you more, or the name-calling?

It's the name-calling. It's juvenile, it's disrespectful and I think it's counterproductive (unless one WANTS to start a civil war). It's a 4T; there are strongly opposing opinions on how to proceed from here, and I get that.

What I do *not* accept is that people have to be rude to each other, to be insulting, to hate (yes, I do mean personally HATE) each other because of their politics, to assume the other side is either really stupid or motivated by evil.

(For what it's worth, I ignored Glick a LONG time ago, for the same reason, but on the opposite side.)

Originally Posted by takascar2

They aren't "Czars", they are advisors without any power. Karl Rove was allowed to make policy decisions, an authority he did not have under the law. It was done by Bush doing whatever Karl told him to do (until the end when Bush finally wised up and fired him).

The "Czars" nonsense is more right-wing bullshit. Obama has no more or less advisors than any other modern president. All people with policy power are subject to the approval of the Senate. That is, when the Repugs get out of the way and allow up or down votes on nominees....

1st 2 years, you had a clear Super Majority....It isn't me, its your party's incompetence. Czars are often given wide policy decision,s under Bush and now under Obama, without Senate oversight.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Not the point.

The point isn't to "keep score" as to who does what more -- I leave that to blindly partisan hacks for whom it's a full-contact sport where you want to kill the other side rather than do what's best for the people.

Simply put -- if you are on "Team A" and you criticize "Team B" for doing something even though you've done it yourself, stop throwing stones in the glass house. I don't care who has thrown more stones. It's not the point. We don't say "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones unless you're throwing at someone who has thrown more stones than you have."

Unless, of course, one is blinded by partisanship.

There are always cases where the consent of the Senate should be denied, and judging by the dogmatic rulings from the SCOTUS, letting Roberts and Alito walk-on may have been an opportunity missed. But of course, both were confirmed. So your point is weak at best.

But the worst excesses are the denials of executive nominees. This is one area that a President typically gets free rein. Bush certainly did. But that's not the case for Obama, who has had to avoid subjecting anyone that might be even slightly controversial, because GOP Senators have been blocking them. They even blocked a now Nobel laureate economist as being "inadequately qualified".

So yes, the GOP is uniquely villainous in this. We have a right to a government, even one that doesn't perform according to the values of the opposition. Allowing this to occur without reciprocity will mean that government devolves to a one party affair, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. That's already too much the case now.

If the GOP House actually impeaches Obama, which seems possible if totally stupid, then the Dems will have no choice but to return the favor in the future. Failure will merely make impeachment a standard GOP tool; one they can and will use with impunity. If you can't see that, then you have succumbed to the very problem you claim to abhor.

Is it any wonder that the political class is the agent of the rich & powerful?

Beside these foreign-based corporations, US-based ones are also heavily invested in the US electoral process. From 1989 to 2010, the top ten list of the largest US donors were: AT & T with $45.6 million, Goldman Sachs with $36.7 million, Citigroup with $27.5 million, UPS with $24.9 million, Altria (AKA Philip Morris) with $24.3 million, Microsoft with $21 million, JP Morgan with $20.3 million, Time Warner with $20 million, Morgan Stanley with $19.8 million, and last but not least Lockheed Martin with $19.3 million.


http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/18...nd-plutocracy/

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are always cases where the consent of the Senate should be denied, and judging by the dogmatic rulings from the SCOTUS, letting Roberts and Alito walk-on may have been an opportunity missed. But of course, both were confirmed.

The election of Al Gore would have prevented lots of problems. Maybe it would have given us a different set, but one set wouldn't have included Citizens United vs. Federal Communications Commission, quite possibly the basis of America becoming a pure plutocracy.

But the worst excesses are the denials of executive nominees. This is one area that a President typically gets free rein. Bush certainly did. But that's not the case for Obama, who has had to avoid subjecting anyone that might be even slightly controversial, because GOP Senators have been blocking them. They even blocked a now Nobel laureate economist as being "inadequately qualified".

The filibuster may be the American equivalent of the old liberum veto of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth -- a practice in which any member of the sejm could stop anything. The Republicans have been far more ruthless than the Democrats in using it.

So yes, the GOP is uniquely villainous in this. We have a right to a government, even one that doesn't perform according to the values of the opposition. Allowing this to occur without reciprocity will mean that government devolves to a one party affair, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. That's already too much the case now.

The advantage of greater ruthlessness still goes to the Republicans. Sometimes one wonders whether the Corporatist Party has an effective majority with far less than a majority.

If the GOP House actually impeaches Obama, which seems possible if totally stupid, then the Dems will have no choice but to return the favor in the future. Failure will merely make impeachment a standard GOP tool; one they can and will use with impunity. If you can't see that, then you have succumbed to the very problem you claim to abhor.

Impeachment is supposed to have a cause in "high crimes and misdemeanors", the only valid measure of judgment. It is not a parliamentary procedure as a vote of no confidence, as the President is not a prime minister appointed by Congress. It is not intended as a vote between elections.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are always cases where the consent of the Senate should be denied, and judging by the dogmatic rulings from the SCOTUS, letting Roberts and Alito walk-on may have been an opportunity missed. But of course, both were confirmed. So your point is weak at best.

But the worst excesses are the denials of executive nominees. This is one area that a President typically gets free rein. Bush certainly did. But that's not the case for Obama, who has had to avoid subjecting anyone that might be even slightly controversial, because GOP Senators have been blocking them. They even blocked a now Nobel laureate economist as being "inadequately qualified".

So yes, the GOP is uniquely villainous in this. We have a right to a government, even one that doesn't perform according to the values of the opposition. Allowing this to occur without reciprocity will mean that government devolves to a one party affair, regardless of the wishes of the electorate. That's already too much the case now.

If the GOP House actually impeaches Obama, which seems possible if totally stupid, then the Dems will have no choice but to return the favor in the future. Failure will merely make impeachment a standard GOP tool; one they can and will use with impunity. If you can't see that, then you have succumbed to the very problem you claim to abhor.

I think this misses a fundamental difference between the current Republican and Democratic parties in Congress. The former are 95% ideologues who care only about winning, the latter are still trying to govern (and are about to pay a heavy price for it.) Few Presidents have committed as many impeachable offenses as George Bush, including violating treaties and encouraging war crimes--but there was no move to impeach him at all.

Meanwhile, I came here to be the first to post the following video,, which will provide some much needed comic relief to all. Excellent production values, too.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this misses a fundamental difference between the current Republican and Democratic parties in Congress. The former are 95% ideologues who care only about winning, the latter are still trying to govern (and are about to pay a heavy price for it.) Few Presidents have committed as many impeachable offenses as George Bush, including violating treaties and encouraging war crimes--but there was no move to impeach him at all.

Meanwhile, I came here to be the first to post the following video,, which will provide some much needed comic relief to all. Excellent production values, too.

I see zero chance there will be impeachment proceedings. This is a lesson learned from 1998.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I see zero chance there will be impeachment proceedings. This is a lesson learned from 1998.

James50

And forgotten since then. See how loopy Gingrich has gotten?

Perhaps he could go back on the Weather Channel...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this misses a fundamental difference between the current Republican and Democratic parties in Congress. The former are 95% ideologues who care only about winning, the latter are still trying to govern (and are about to pay a heavy price for it.)

Hyperbole, exaggeration, whatever. There is an abundance of ideologues on both sides. After all, the prophets are in charge.

But also, be careful of false devils. See sig,

James50

Even if the Republicans take the House, they can't really bring impeachment proceedings without some pretext, so the first thing they would do is to mount a whole slew of investigations fishing for something -- anything -- to use for the purpose. And it might never come to impeachment anyway. I'm firmly convinced that the Clinton impeachment never seriously sought to remove him from office and was purely done for political reasons, the long investigations during his first term to try to dig up dirt to use against him in 1996, and then when that failed the impeachment merely as a way to discredit Democrats generally. It would be the same with Obama. Getting a 2/3 conviction vote in the Senate is almost impossible unless, as with Nixon, there's a really serious reason to convict, and Nixon set the precedent that a president in that situation will most likely resign. It's been tried twice and it failed both times.

Overlooked by most here, redistricting is also happening after the election with several Red states getting more seats and mostly blue states losing them. Republicans are going to gain in governorships and control of more state legislatures....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...toWhatsNewsTop



OOPS...I posted this on the '12 election, I'l repost in the '10 election thread...

Originally Posted by wtrg8

The only power corporations cannot buy, is the green 'VOTE' button that you as the individual can push. Some will say it doesn't matter, but it does.

But those giant corporations can buy Orwellian propaganda. Such has destroyed democracy in the past. America may be no exception.

Marco Rubio could well be the Obama of 2012.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Marco Rubio could well be the Obama of 2012.

James50

If Obama crashes to the point that he loses in 2012, it won't be to another rookie. It was always a big point against him, and anyone else trying that path will have a much tougher time being taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If Obama crashes to the point that he loses in 2012, it won't be to another rookie. It was always a big point against him, and anyone else trying that path will have a much tougher time being taken seriously.

If President Obama loses to any Tea Party type, then American democracy is likely dead. Elections in 2014 and later will then be as meaningless as those in Cuba.

Right. Cuba. The only difference will be that the political system will glorify the Master Class and treat the workers as pariahs.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If President Obama loses to any Tea Party type, then American democracy is likely dead. Elections in 2014 and later will then be as meaningless as those in Cuba.

Right. Cuba. The only difference will be that the political system will glorify the Master Class and treat the workers as pariahs.

Cuba has better health care.

King Canute in 1012! He will roll the tide back!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

King Canute in 1012! He will roll the tide back!

The king will have much more favorable demographics behind him in *1012.*
All of those younger members of the newer tribes will be back in the voting booth.

Speaking of analogies, as one who is part Cherokee, I've never liked General Custer very much. But in some ways tonight's results are a bit like the outcome of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A unique set of circumstances has temporarally put the "bluebellies" into an unwinnable hole vis a vis the "redskins."

But, just as the westward movement was irresisable, so too is the tide of time. The new generational coalition is growing in numbers every year while the older one shrinks.
In a few years the GOP will have to re-brand itself again. And next time the packaging will have to be more millie friendly. To put it another way, the Republicans have a future, but movement conservatism does not--at least not until the next 3T comes somewhere around 2065. Tonight the movement C's will reach a high water mark that will not be reachable again for at least a half a century.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The king will have much more favorable demographics behind him in *1012.*
All of those younger members of the newer tribes will be back in the voting booth.

Speaking of analogies, as one who is part Cherokee, I've never liked General Custer very much. But in some ways tonight's results are a bit like the outcome of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A unique set of circumstances has temporarally put the "bluebellies" into an unwinnable hole vis a vis the "redskins."

But, just as the westward movement was irresisable, so too is the tide of time. The new generational coalition is growing in numbers every year while the older one shrinks.
In a few years the GOP will have to re-brand itself again. And next time the packaging will have to be more millie friendly. To put it another way, the Republicans have a future, but movement conservatism does not--at least not until the next 3T comes somewhere around 2065. Tonight the movement C's will reach a high water mark that will not be reachable again for at least a half a century.

Damn, Rick, I hope you're right.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Damn, Rick, I hope you're right.

Well, I am assuming that Obama doesn't cave to the Social Security privatizers and other Bush tax cut defenders.

Also, I expect the current Republican Party to behave like, well, how they behave when they have power. The house GOP is gong to be like a group of unreformed junkies who've been locked up for four years hitting the smack filled streets again.
I expect that a lot of people who voted GOP tonight will find nothing grand about the old party's behavior come 2012. ::

Anyone for a cup of tea?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well, I am assuming that Obama doesn't cave to the Social Security privatizers and other Bush tax cut defenders.

The former, highly unlikely. The latter, entirely possible though it may only be another "temporary" extension or some such.

The market crash of '08-09, when 401Ks became 201Ks, is still too burned into the minds of many to push privatizing of SS, I suspect. When the only people able to retire today are those who have good pensions and the "401K generation" may never retire, the last thing many people will want to do is trade what little pension-like security they have for... more 401K.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Anyone for a cup of tea?

I was thinking of vodka and valium.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Anyone for a cup of tea?

No thanks, I've got my Yuengling--it's not Edelweiss or Ottakringer, but it's good enough.

~Chas'88

The US House of Representatives -- now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and Big Oil.

Stage I of the hostile takeover of American democracy is complete.