The real poll will follow the food fight now being orchestrated in Congress. Anything run before that train wreck is finished is a waste of time and money ... unless it's intended to establish a baseline for future recriminations.Originally Posted by Weave
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Or worse - as in double-dip recession, which dooms Obama for certain, maybe even in the Democratic primary if he bungles foreign policy.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
My guess is that the economy will start to tank when QEII ends this summer.
However, if that does happen, Bernake will initiate QE III. That will keep the economy functioning in a pseudo-expansion and Obama will become more popular. Commodities will continue to ramp, overshoot, and crash.
If that doesn't happen, then we get an expansion and Obama becomes more popular.
Well we all know that Obama is running for re-election.
I heard a quip about the contrast between his kick off for the 2008 election as compared to 2012.
For the 2008 election he made a speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. For 2012 he released a two minute infomercial.
Talk about diminished expectations.
I think 2012 is going to be crucial. As the Mayans say, it's going to be a time of change. For America, it will be a crucial decision about what kind of change we want. Do we want to move forward toward a society and economy that works well for all of us? Not complete "equality" like the free marketeers say we want, but fuller opportunity instead of domination by a few, as we have today in the wake of 30 years of free marketeers. If we get sucked in by their deceptive slogans, and fall for their nonsense, then America falls into a rathole that it may never climb out of. Whether we live in a world with a decent climate and reliable energy for all, and a society that moves ahead with the world; a society in which all can play a meaningful part, rather than one of accelerating poverty and slavery to the corporate bosses who own and run everything, may well be decided in 2012. If the Democrats lose the Senate, and fail to take back the House, then Obama will probably cave in to the power of the free marketeers and be unable to create anything like he promised back in 2008. And the Democrats can hope, at best, given the math, to hold onto their bare majority in the Senate, and to recover a bare majority in the House.
Even that will be at best a holding action, thanks to the mistake the people in the heartland of America made in 2010. It means it may be many years before we really face up to the issues of this 4T, and move toward change. In the meantime, we tread water; or fall into a chasm. That is our choice in 2012. And I think all of us who are mindful of this situation (Phil (?), JPT, Weave et. al. need not apply), need to ask what we can do to help America choose the right path forward, instead of the rathole of Republican extreme-freemarket trickle-down deception.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-10-2011 at 05:13 PM.
QE = Quantitative Easing, the Fed creating money to buy up debt, or something like that.
Predicting the 2012 Election
I agree with Brian that it is impossible to predict correctly what will happen two years from now. It all depends on the economy. Nevertheless, its fun to make predictions anyway.
I predict that the Republicans will take control of the senate. The GOP has won the political debate and with Democrats defending so many seats in 2012, the GOP has an excellent shot at taking the senate.
I predict that the GOP will make nominal gains in the House. After three straight political earthquakes, I think the country will keep essentially the status quo in the House. However, GOP gains at the state level in 2010 will allow them to pick up a few more seats through extra gerrymandering.
If the economy avoids a recession and the current trends of the economy continue, then I predict Obama wins reelection, however, by a slimmer margin than in 2008. I don't expect Obama to win Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina again; while Obama has a good shot at taking Arizona.
If we double dip into a recession, then I predict the GOP nominee (Huckabee or Romney) to win in a landslide. Obama's only wins will be in Vermont, New York, Massachussets, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, DC, Illinois, California and Hawaii.
The GOP will gain at least 5 seats in the House because of redistribution from blue to red states, leaving aside the effects of redistricting. I am not sure they will gain overall, however. Their chances in the Senate are excellent and one could probably give them one pick-up (Virginia) right now; on the other hand, Connecticut will replace Lieberman with an actual Democrat.
Now I'm a client of google ad-sense which places ads on my blog. The ads are undoubtedly selected based upon where people who visit my blog have been. Since the fraudulent email still draws a large number of people to the blog, one frequently finds right-wing ads on it. For the last few days there is an ad for Donald Trump's campaign, which leads to a poll, in which, inter alia, you are asked to choose among the Republican candidates. It is quite a shock to see the expected candidates in a list. They are so pathetic that I think Obama is very likely to win.
I am bemused that Eric thinks Obama will cave in if the Republicans win the Senate and keep the House. He has obviously given in completely already.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Wednesday will be an important day I think. That is when the president will lay out his plan to reduce the deficit.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110410/...a_budget_obama I share in the widespread fears among people on my side of the ideological divide in this country that Obama is planning to triangulate by meeting the Republicans halfway on cutting medicare or raising the social security retirement age. Such concessions, especially at a time when we should be focusing on the nearly 9 percent unemployment rate through additional fiscal stimulus, would be intolerable to me and probably many others who feel as I do. I don't know if progressive disappointment will make a decisive difference during next year's election, but someone has to knock on doors for Obama ....
That being said, the statements by his representative do offer me some hope that Obama won't completely walk the plank. He chose his words pretty carefully when describing the type of changes the Obama administration is considering in medicare, medicaid, and social security in order to reduce the deficit.
In regard to medicare and medicaid he said that they needed to "look at medicare and medicaid and see what kind of savings you can get. First squeeze them out before squeezing the seniors."
In regard to social security he said that the administration (rightfully) does not view it as being "a driver of significant costs ..." but that if there can be a discussion as to how to strengthen social security in the future he is open to having that discussion".
Overall, Plouffe said that the goal was to protect the middle class in the process of closing the deficit, and he seemed to indicate that the administration favored raising taxes on high earning individuals before making cuts. He contrasted that approach with the Republican plan, which he indicated was unacceptable because it made cuts that hurt the middle class while giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
To me the money quote this in terms of outlining the direction the administration is going to take:
"... your making a choice. Your asking seniors and the middle class to pay more. (due to the cuts in the Ryan plan) You wouldn't have to do this if you weren't giving the very, very wealthiest in this country enormous tax relief"
A link to the full transcript of the interview: http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/n...2441542647.xml
What I took from the exchange is that the Obama administration is planning on running on a platform of protecting social security and medicare against the Republicans, which I think can be a winning message for the democrats. I know that a lot of people somehow became convinced during the mid-terms that the Democrats were the party intent on cutting medicare. Hopefully by drawing a contrast between a democratic plan that does not cut medicare and social security and a Republican plan that does the democrats can reverse that somewhat puzzling perception.
It will be especially important because estimates are that the budget that was just passed our GDP will be between 1/2 and 1 percentage point less than it otherwise would have been and our unemployment will rate will be few tenths of a point higher.
http://delong.typepad.com/
The worse the economic situation, the worse for the incumbent in my view.
I think Obama made a fatal mistake last December when he allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue. He had to go before the American people, lay out the deficit, explain where it really came from--Bush tax cuts, wars, and the recession, in that order--and tell them, we need a government and we have to pay for it. He should have let all the Bush tax cuts expire, not just the ones for those who make over $200,000. That would have affected me. It should have. He could still make this argument now, but from a much weaker position--and anyway, he won't. I assume many of you have learned by now that the much-ballyhooed Ryan plan won't do anything about the deficit at all because he wants to give back all his cuts in new tax cuts.
As it was, the 2% Social Security cut, a disaster, ballooned the deficit still further and made it impossible to resist the calls to dismantle the federal government. The situation regarding Medicare and Medicaid is even worse. There's only one solution to our health care system that will provide care for all: single-payer. That was ruled out at the very beginning as well. Now the plan that was passed is being nibbled to death, and it may be thrown out by the Supremes.
If the Republicans had one half-decent candidate Obama would be a sitting duck. But they don't.
See my last blog for a broader view. . . .
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Yes, war is a major drain on our economy. This is not to mention the hundreds of military bases that we have built and continue to support. Chalmers Johnson calls them the empire of bases.
Just this morning, I read where the Pentagon is contemplating not getting out of Iraq any time soon. Since we have built numerous permanent military bases there, I was skeptical about our leaving, in spite of the promises.
Here are some figures that should give us pause pertaining to the cost of our current military operations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_847257.htmlThe Unites States, with costly military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased spending by 2.8 percent to $698 billion -- about six times as much as China, the second-biggest spender ahead of Britain, France and Russia. In 2009, U.S. spending grew 7.7 percent.
"The United States has increased its military spending by 81 percent since 2001," SIPRI said. "At 4.8 percent of gross domestic product, U.S. military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East," said SIPRI Military Expenditure Project chief Sam Perlo-Freeman.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Although I want a strong military, I agree that we have too many bases in foreign countries. I also am strongly opposed to the unnecessary ‘wars’ in Iraq & Afghanistan and all nation-building exercises.
I also think we need a strong military, but we are verging on gourging the war machine, while some Americans are suffering from hunger and experiencing their social saftey nets ripped out from under them.
We need a military for defense and real humanitarian interventions. Way too often, anti-war activists are seen, and pigeon holed, as anti-military. Not true in many respects. Many of us see that way too often, war appears to be one of the first courses of action. Our country has set up a system where our military frequently serves the elite and their profits, not protection for our citizens.
I believe it was Madalyn Albright, who in my opinion is not too bright, said something to this affect; "Since we have one of the strongest militaries on this planet, we might as well use it." How's that for a war mentality?
Some of my favorite quotes:
"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." - George Washington
"Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both." - Abraham Flexner
Last edited by Deb C; 04-11-2011 at 10:24 AM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Especially because the old Soviet military machine is no longer the menace that it once was. China seems not to have any desire to spread any ideology elsewhere. The only way in which China makes any effort to extend its style of government elsewhere is if someone does something incredibly stupid.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
The Democrats in VA seem to have a good candidate. I am hopeful (but not too hopeful) that people will wake up and replace government by perpetual threatened shutdown with real folks.
Quite so. Which also means it is congress where the real battle is. I wonder if the Obama folks get that yet.the Republican candidates...They are so pathetic that I think Obama is very likely to win.
He could give in even more and farther than he has so far, which will happen if the Reps take the Senate. As you know (since I found out from youI am bemused that Eric thinks Obama will cave in if the Republicans win the Senate and keep the House. He has obviously given in completely already.) the House almost ended regulation of greenhouse gases, aid to planned parenthood, financial regulation of Wall Street, health care reform, support for NPR, etc. Saved for now, but for how long?
If Obama wanted to try to get taxes back up on the rich before the next election, I wonder what he would have to sacrifice in order to get it?
If he is smart (big question) he will only propose things now that will frame the next election, and give up totally on doing anything until then except perhaps to tweak the corporate tax code.
Love it; thanks Deb."Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both." - Abraham Flexner
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-11-2011 at 12:50 PM.
If you want to get an expert's view of what happened after the Cold War, I highly recommend Chalmer Johnson's book, Blowback. He was a marvelous historian with not only a remarkable mind for history and a connect of what was happening beneath the news, he had a hands on experience of his studies and writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_JohnsonChalmers Ashby Johnson (August 6, 1931 - November 20, 2010)[1] was an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He served in the Korean War, was a consultant for the CIA from 1967–1973, and chaired the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Berkeley from 1967 to 1972.[2] He was also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute (now based at the University of San Francisco), an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia.[3] He wrote numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
The following is from a letter by Chalmers's wife.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had acquired an empire but, Chal argued, so had we. After the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, Eastern Europe and many parts of the Soviet Union itself -- Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan -- declared their independence, while the U.S. only expanded its overseas military bases. Chal decided to call his book “Blowback” (a term of tradecraft he’d first heard at the CIA for operations so secret that when they “blew back” on the U.S., ordinary Americans had no clue as to the connection). Even in those relatively quiet years of the 1990s when American pundits and others spoke of this country as the “sole superpower” on planet Earth, or even its towering “hyperpower,” he became convinced that there would be a time of reckoning for the U.S., as there had been for the Soviet Union, and that it would not be as far off as almost everyone imagined.
Chal explained what happened next:
“I wrote Blowback between 1997 and 1999, and it was published in March 2000 [by Metropolitan Books]. In the summer of 2000, I signed another contract with [Metropolitan] to write a new book, but at that time I conceived it as a book about Asia -- particularly China, Japan, and Korea -- and their relationships with the U.S. Blowback sold reasonably well throughout 2000 and the first part of 2001, but after 9/11 it suddenly began to jump off bookstore shelves. So I stopped and wrote a new, post-9/11 preface to Blowback and did a lot of journalism and radio interviews; and I found that I had quite a lot more to say on the whole subject of blowback and, more particularly, on how the American government was reacting to the threat of terrorism and al-Qaeda. I scrapped my earlier book outline and wrote a new one, and for the next 15 months I worked like someone possessed on this new book.”
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic was published in January 2004. At its heart lay a region by region anatomy of America’s global “baseworld” and how it worked, a subject that remained remarkably undiscussed and unanalyzed in this country. Subsequently, Chal gave many speeches and interviews in an effort to help deny George W. Bush -- “likely the single worst president in the history of the American republic” -- a second term. When Bush was reelected and the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan continued to take their human and economic toll, he became determined to write a third book in what would become The Blowback Trilogy.
This time his tone was more alarmist, while his focus was on the way an American version of military Keynesianism was failing the country. He feared that the U.S. would be simultaneously overwhelmed by related tides of militarism and bankruptcy. Reflecting his own grim mood, he chose for his title the name of the Greek goddess of myth whose task was to punish human arrogance and hubris: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. In it, he pulled together many of his thoughts about the fate of empires -- particularly the Roman and British ones -- and predicted that, in the reasonably near future, the U.S. would have to choose between remaining a democratic society or becoming a military dictatorship.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
You are most welcome.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
... at least not yet.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Eyes are opening.
The President Is Missing
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 10, 2011
For much more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/op...n.html?_r=2&hp.Op-Ed Columnist
What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?
I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.
His remarks after last week’s budget deal were a case in point.
Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.
And bear in mind that this was just the first of several chances for Republicans to hold the budget hostage and threaten a government shutdown; by caving in so completely on the first round, Mr. Obama set a baseline for even bigger concessions over the next few months.
Last edited by Deb C; 04-11-2011 at 04:09 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
More seats in currently red states do not necessarily mean more red seats. As the population of red states grows due to immigration from other parts of the country, they become less red. Urban areas of red states aren't so red already, and my guess is that's where a lot of the growth is occurring, if not all of it. What we may see is new Democratic Congresscritters elected from new districts in the South and Southwest. In fact, I think that's probably the way to bet, the only caution being the effect of redistricting.
There's a political drama in play right now that has nothing to do with Obama, and much will depend on how that plays out. The Republicans, especially at the state level but also in the House, have overreached and the leftist insurgency is responding. It looks like at least one of the state senators from Wisconsin targeted for recall will face a recall election, assuming the signatures on the petition -- far in excess of the required number -- pass muster. There's every reason to believe that the others will be recalled as well. The recent narrow defeat of an incumbent Supreme Court judge in that state also shows which way the wind is blowing.
There are two questions before us which will be decided this year and next year. How will the Republicans respond to this challenge? And, How will President Obama respond to it? On those questions, together with whether the GOP gets its act together to nominate someone halfway decent, hang Obama's reelection chances.
As I've been saying, the reforms of a Crisis era are always driven from the bottom up, not imposed paternalistically from the top down. Absent agitation for such reform, it will not happen; it never happens merely as a result of an election. That we are seeing agitation means that the process begins now, and everything that's happened up to this point is only a prelude.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
The incumbent won after votes from Waukesha county were properly counted.
I would not be too sure about the efforts to recall Republicans. Time will tell. There are Democrats in trouble as well. The right has also been awakened.
James50
Last edited by James50; 04-11-2011 at 04:52 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
James, the fact remains that the election was extremely close, when incumbents on the Wisconsin Supreme Court normally win in a walkover. It should have been no contest. The fact that it was, not whether the incumbent narrowly won or narrowly lost, is what's indicative here.
The right was awakened some time ago. What's changed is that now the left is awakened as well, so that we can see relative numbers and passion. The passion seems pretty evenly divided, but the numbers are on the side of the left. The article you linked seriously misrepresents the facts. For example:
"Whether Prosser wins by several thousand votes, or loses by a couple of hundred, the unions and Democrats gave it their best shot under near ideal circumstances, and they came up short of expectations."
That is totally untrue. There was no "expectation" of unseating the incumbent judge. The fact that they came close vastly exceeded expectations. Attempting to do so, automatically and ipso facto, is NOT under "near ideal circumstances." Nor is the fact of a copycat recall effort indicative of much if anything.
Another example:
"What happened is that the histrionics of the unions and national Democrats awakened the Republican, conservative and Tea Party bases both in Wisconsin and nationally."
This is absurd. If those bases weren't already awake, how did the GOP win last year's election? No, what's changed now is the awakening of activism on the left, not the right.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
I forgot to say I think you are correct about this.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
A "Massachusetts Miracle?" Come on. The whole idea is repulsive. I have met Bob Wirch and he is a good and decent man. If either those out-of-state busybodies or the other group do get their recall going, I will be taking some action.
Kenosha woke up last week and gave its vote to Kloppenburg. I would not count out Bob Wirch just yet.
EDIT: Brian is also right about the histrionic tone of that blogger. I mean, his very first sentence starts:
"A few weeks ago, when the protests in Madison were still raging, it appeared that Justice David Prosser would go down to defeat by at least several percentage points..."
PUH-LEASE. I never saw any poll data to indicate more than a statistical dead heat AT MOST. Mr. Jacobson is peddling some serious bullshit.
Last edited by Child of Socrates; 04-11-2011 at 10:52 PM.
Redistricting
Iowa may provide an example of a slightly different sort. Currently, the Iowa House delegation is 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Iowa lost a seat because of the census and the redistricting plan most likely to be accepted by the legislature will place the 2 Republicans in the same district (they represent the western, mostly rural sections of the state). Two of the Democrats are also thrown into the same, new district while the other Democrat keeps his seat (mostly around Des Moines) unmolested. The two placed in the same new district represent the more urban, eastern part of the state, and one of the incumbents, Dave Loebsack, is likely to move 20 miles south, to the new district in southeast Iowa where there is no incumbent (he essentially would be trading Cedar Rapids for Davenport), and would retain most of the counties he represents now. In this way, it will be very hard for the Republicans not to lose one of the seats they hold now, while the Democrats would have a leg up in keeping the 3 seats they hold now.
Pax,
Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.
