Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

All hail the time of the bunny!

Shut up, hissy kitty!

We still have time to mess this up!

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

He really is that stupid.

Second rate reporter says what?

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Open thread

Reader Interactions

189Comments

  1. 1.

    Alwhite

    We are not passengers on spaceship Earth, we are crew members and if we don’t start doing a better job of it we are going to crash and burn.

  3. 3.

    Cacti

    I blame Harry Reid and Barack Obama for Susan Collins being a feckless liar and Republican partisan on DADT.

  4. 4.

    BGinCHI

    Everyone seems to think O’Donnell looks like a chubby Sarah Palin.

    Am I the only one who thinks she’s more of a Monica Lewinsky?

    Physical, not moral resemblance. Draw your own conclusions.

  5. 5.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @BGinCHI:

    I’ve come to accept the prettier, less skinny Sarah Palin interpretation, but to me she looks like someone from an 80s movie, though I’m not sure who.

  7. 7.

    Xantar

    Ok, I really need someone who is familiar with Senate procedures to explain something to me.

    The repeal of DADT is part of the Defense Authorization Bill, right? And if the Defense Authorization Bill does not pass, then our troops literally have no money next year, right? And removing the repeal of DADT from the Defense Authorization Bill would require 60 senators to vote to amend the Bill, right?

    So why exactly is everyone acting as if repeal of DADT is dead? Doesn’t the vote on Tuesday simply mean that Harry Reid can re-introduce the bill to the floor and dare the Republicans to vote agaisnt it again? And again and again and again? What am I missing here? The best explanation I’ve gotten is that we’re afraid Harry Reid might stript repeal of DADT from the Defense Authorization Bill and then submit it to the floor, but my understanding is he actually can’t do that even if he wants to because it’s already been reported out of committee and it’s too late in the process now. Am I wrong?

  8. 8.

    Sad_Dem

    Here’s the stupidest thing I found on the Internet today:

    “The queen of england is a terrorist!!

    Not , lol. after murdering princess – Diane Spencer – in the meeting with the paparazzi just hours before her death they eet at the castle- several witnesses (news, pulic records,) said they say the car bump into her several times befor the reulted high speed chase- (premeditated murder) and conspiracy aganist- she could be charged with treason! To this very day she refuse to give up her thrown to price charles- declaring that he cannot represent the country the way she belives the global economics; should be handled?

    Maybe:

    Sir, Price Charles will wager war against the queen by finnce to take back the control giving the country of england back to the people!!”

    It’s a comment on Infowars.

  10. 10.

    Brachiator

    Yeah, I find Dems’ decision to punt on the Bush tax cuts profoundly depressing.

    I can’t believe this. Yeah, I can. Way to undercut their own message. I just don’t know what is wrong with these people and their excess of caution.

  13. 13.

    Chyron HR

    @BGinCHI:

    “O’Donnell”? I thought that was Julia Louis-Dreyfus running for Senate. What’s with her Seinfeld-inspired “Master of your Domain” campaign ads, then?

  14. 14.

    Elizabelle

    Is it possible the report of no vote before the election is wrong?

    Because it’s so damn stupid. Unbelievable.

  15. 15.

    Wannabe Speechwriter

    Let’s not treat the Dems refusal to raise taxes on people over $250k as an act of “gutlessness.” It’s pure and simple-they serve their donors, not their constituents. They want their contributions and, should they loose reelection, they want a cushy job. We can’t spend money on supertrains or send everyone to college for free but we always seem to have money to give to rich people. It’s times like this when violent revolutionary socialism really seems to have an appeal…

  17. 17.

    cynickal

    I don’t live in Arizona, but thanks to ACORN! I’m registered to vote there illegally for Ralph Nader.

  18. 18.

    FlipYrWhig

    @BGinCHI: I also think she looks like Monica Lewinsky. But I’m not that embarrassed to admit that I always had kind of a thing for Monica Lewinsky.

  22. 22.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @brendancalling:

    I’m seeing some Linda Ronstadt.

    You’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good, baby you’re no good. I’m gonna say it again.

  24. 24.

    Xantar

    @ Mark S.

    Ok, but if they vote after the elections, that still means that at the end of the year DADT will have been repealed. From a political and electoral standpoint, it’s disappointing. I understand that it would have been a good thing to fire up the liberal base and get people out to vote. But the repeal of DADT is still objectively a good thing, isn’t it?

  28. 28.

    Basilisc

    I used to think the central dynamic of American politics was that Republicans play to win, Democrats play to tie. But recent events have forced me to toss that one away. “Playing to tie” might mean, say, throwing away the House while trying to keep the Senate. Or extending the GWB tax cuts in exchange for a symbolic (losing) vote for the middle-class-only approach. Or losing a symbolic vote to end DADT (as opposed to a vote to end DADT plus miscellaneous confusing riders) to a Republican+Nelson/Bayh/Lincoln filibuster. But no, they’re not even doing that.

    How about: Republicans play to win, Democrats play to make sure the Republican win is as overwhelming, decisive and humiliating as possible.

  29. 29.

    joe from Lowell

    @Xantar:

    It would take an amendment to remove DADT repeal from the bill. If the supporters didn’t filibuster, that could be done with 51 votes.

    They don’t have 51 votes to remove it, unless some Democrats cave in order to move the whole bill.

  32. 32.

    Ash Can

    @BGinCHI:

    Physical, not moral resemblance.

    I dunno. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone who says the ridiculous things she says has a secret habit of going down on entire frat houses at a time.

  37. 37.

    Kryptik

    1) O’Donnell reminds me of Julia Louis-Dreyfus as well.

    2) John, Doug, et. al., I have a modest suggestion: plead ‘Green Balloon Juice’, and dedicate the whole of Friday to the mundane, adorable, and anything non-political, and if anyone tries to bring up anything political in the comments, take them out back and force them to listen to Toby Keith songs.

  38. 38.

    August J. Pollak

    So why exactly is everyone acting as if repeal of DADT is dead? Doesn’t the vote on Tuesday simply mean that Harry Reid can re-introduce the bill to the floor and dare the Republicans to vote agaisnt it again? And again and again and again? What am I missing here?

    The fact that after November the GOP will have 7 or 8 more Senators- including, if the polls hold in Illinois, one who will take over a seat immediately after Election Day. With 48-49 Republicans now in the Senate, it will merely take a “sensible Democrat” to introduce a bill that strips the funding bill to “remove everything that pads it and gets in the way of funding the troops” – i.e. DADT repeal and the DREAM Act. Democrats don’t filibuster it, because that would be rude.

  43. 43.

    DonkeyKong

    Why are the Democrats punting on the extinction asteroid. I’m anti- asteroid so I’m voting for Morgan Freeman.

  45. 45.

    Violet

    After my thoroughly depressing phone call to my Congresscritter’s office this morning, I called back this afternoon. The intern told me that she “thought they were voting on tax cuts right now” and that “they have four or five things to vote on, and I thought tax cuts was one of them.”

    WTF?

    I told her I was pretty sure she was wrong and expressed my great disappointment that they’ve punted on voting on the tax cuts. And the intern reiterated that she didn’t think that was the case. I told her I’d just heard it on the radio and read it about five places online. She said she “didn’t know about that.”

    Honestly, my Congressperson needs seriously better interns. This is beyond depressing.

    I repeated my request that my Representative vote along the lines the President suggested, and the intern said she’d write that down. At least that’s a slightly better result than I got this morning.

  48. 48.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @Kryptik:

    I’d like to do more non-political posts in general, but I’m not sure what people are interested in, besides pets. I get sick of talking about tv and music, but there must be other non-political stuff.

  49. 49.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Basilisc: I think Democrats play like a small-conference college basketball team in the NCAA tournament… they’re up by 11 against a powerhouse from a major conference. If the other guys get a three, it’s a single-digit lead, and everything’s going to unravel quickly from there. So in order to avoid that, they play really tight, start taking too many passes, start turning the ball over, then the other guys finally do hit that three, and they end up making happen exactly what they were afraid would happen by trying so hard to prevent it.

  50. 50.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @Violet:

    Honestly, my Congressperson needs seriously better interns.

    He should talk with Joe Scarborough about this.

  51. 51.

    ppcli

    Supporting the Democratic party is like being a Detroit Lions fan. You think they’ve exhausted all the mind-numbing ways to screw up and then they produce a completely new one that you would never have anticipated in one million years.

    Look, I understand that politicians will typically not deliver on many of the things that follow from the principles they grandly endorse. But I would have thought that at least they could be counted on to act in ways that any idjit can see are in their practical interest. I just do not see any upside at all for the Democrats in letting this issue slip, and tons of downside. I just don’t get it. Just tap the ball into the open net, guys.

  52. 52.

    Kryptik

    @Violet:

    Pretty representative of our whole damn party representation in Congress, actually: Clueless.

    Seriously, can anyone tell me of a Congressperson (and by that I mean anyone in Congress as a whole, Senate or House) worth saving at this point, aside from Pelosi, Grayson, and Franken?

  55. 55.

    BGinCHI

    Dougj, either wine, or Liverpool FC, or books. Bonus for all three.

    I could also do a “What’s New in Shakespeare Studies” post.

  56. 56.

    someguy

    What a bunch of softee liberal pussies you people are.

    A couple months ago, it was high treason, damn near, for the Republicans to advocate extending the Bush tax cuts. We need the revenue! Can’t taxcut your way out of debt and so on. Now it’s high treason that the Dems won’t get behind the semi-popular extending tax cuts for those households making under $250k.

    Look, only 60% of the people polled think that’s a good idea. Know who that is? 50% of those are Republican dead enders. Another 35% are morons who vote Republican because that’s just what they do. If you associated public butt scratching and incest with Republicans, they’d be for it because hey, incest and butt scratching are Republican initiatives. The other 15% are independents who are as likely to be swayed by what they eat for breakfast on election day morning, or some good economic news, as anything the Democrats do or don’t do.

    Honestly, the panic and hysteria over this just because Krugman did a poll-driven about face is ridiculous. Consider the possibility that the Dems are gutless because so many of the Dem base are, well, let’s say you guys get riled up sorta easy. The fact stands – you can’t taxcut your way out of debt and the debate needs to be not whether to extend cuts, but over how much of a hike is needed to bring back some solvency. This will put the Republicans on their heels, because if you frame the issue that way, then any tax cut talk can be portrayed as the fiscal irresponsibility that it is.

  57. 57.

    Allison W.

    @Kryptik:

    Gillibrand.

    There are plenty. They just aren’t popular like the ones you named. It would be easier to name the ones who always punt.

  59. 59.

    Kryptik

    @DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.:

    Sports? I know John’s all about WVU and the Steelers (even if I only agree with half of that fandom), and even casual topics about something unrelated to the current ongoing manic depressive episode called ‘US Politics’, regardless of the actual subject, could help everyone here detox. Hell, you and John are both gamers, right, casually so at the very least?

    Just…anything, man, I pleading here.

  60. 60.

    MeDrewNotYou

    @Ash Can: I forget where I read it (Washington Monthly comments?), but someone made an interesting case that she’s a deeply in the closet lesbian. For someone to be spouting this nonsense at her age without being married does strike me as kind of weird, and that she might just denounce all sexuality to escape from what she is. If that’s the case, I feel kinda sorry for her.

  61. 61.

    Basilisc

    @FlipYrWhig: Right. Except that half the players on the small-college team are deliberately turning the ball over to the big-college team, in the hope that this will convince the big-college team’s fans to maybe root for them.

  64. 64.

    Violet

    @DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.:

    I’d like to do more non-political posts in general, but I’m not sure what people are interested in, besides pets. I get sick of talking about tv and music, but there must be other non-political stuff.

    Gardening and birdfeeders did pretty well when John talked about them this summer. Food threads are good. The Thursday night menu thread always goes up so late for me that I don’t usually get to join in.

  65. 65.

    BGinCHI

    @DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.: Start with Jonathan Gil Harris’s two recent books (Untimely Matter in the Time of Shakespeare and Shakespeare and Literary Theory). Really smart guy and good all-around egg.

    There’s also a really nifty article in the Spring Shakespeare Quarterly on The Tempest (Rorschach Tempest or The Tempest of William S. Performed by Flies on the Erection of a Dreaming Hyena, by Teddy Jefferson).

    Also, new film version of the Tempest by Julie Taymor due out late in the fall.

  66. 66.

    Xantar

    The fact that after November the GOP will have 7 or 8 more Senators- including, if the polls hold in Illinois, one who will take over a seat immediately after Election Day. With 48-49 Republicans now in the Senate, it will merely take a “sensible Democrat” to introduce a bill that strips the funding bill to “remove everything that pads it and gets in the way of funding the troops” – i.e. DADT repeal and the DREAM Act. Democrats don’t filibuster it, because that would be rude.

    But the new Republican senators do not take office until January, 2011. And the Defense Authorization Bill must pass this year (2010) in order to take effect and provide funding for the Defense Department next year. If it does not pass this year, there is literally no money for the military. So the Defense Authorization Bill must pass before any new Republican senators take office. So it seems to me that repeal of DADT is pretty much certain now. But if I’m wrong, I sincerely do want someone to explain to me why I’m wrong.

  68. 68.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @Kryptik:

    I’m not a gamer, I don’t even really know what it means to be a gamer.

    I’ll do some liquor posts this weekend, though, and maybe also random amusing stuff that I’ve found over the past week.

  69. 69.

    FlipYrWhig

    @ppcli:

    I just do not see any upside at all for the Democrats in letting this issue slip, and tons of downside.

    “The Democrats” as a group stand to benefit by doing what we want them to do: two votes, one on tax cuts for 100% of Americans, which will pass, and one on extra tax cuts for 2% of Americans, which probably wouldn’t.

    But a large portion of Democrats are afraid that “raising taxes” on the top 2% will be deadly to their reelection chances. In other words, something that would benefit “the Democrats” wouldn’t, they think, benefit them in their own individual races; it may even harm them. So they don’t want it to happen. They want “the Democrats” to support all the tax cuts so that they can’t be run against for raising taxes on the top 2%. There’s upside for 30-40 Democrats, maybe more, and they’re making it difficult for the hundreds of others to work around them.

  70. 70.

    eemom

    @BGinCHI:

    the merchant from Stratford-upon-Avon vs. the Earl of Oxford? May not count as “Shakespeare studies” but I still think it’s interesting. Or have they stopped arguing about that?

  71. 71.

    JWL

    “Here’s the stupidest thing I found on the Internet today: “The queen of england is a terrorist!!”.

    Is Lyndon LaRouche still alive?

    I’ll credit LaRouche for this sensible observation: “a person doesn’t have to wear a brown shirt in order to be a fascist”.

    Just like a congressman doesn’t need a ‘R’ behind their name to support the republican party.

  72. 72.

    JohnR

    @Sad_Dem:

    Shortly before he mysteriously disappeared, one of the papparazzi involved is said to have drunkenly told to the former bartender (now missing) of Rick’s on the rue Boyer (what a shame about that tragic gas explosion) about a mysterious “9th papparazzo” – a slight, masked figure all in black leathers with curly silver hair escaping from under the ninja hood, riding a Hayabusa like a madman, who came out of nowhere, swerved in close to the car just before the crash, holding what appeared to be some sort of tube up to his(?) face and then escaped at well over 200 kph the wrong way through the tunnel and down the freeway, with the Corgi being held under one arm obviously enjoying the ride. To this day, the identity of this (possibly apocryphal) person is a complete mystery.

  73. 73.

    jrg

    Yeah, I find Dems’ decision to punt on the Bush tax cuts profoundly depressing. If I lived in Arizona, I’d vote for Sharron Angle.

    I find the decision to place sporks in our company cafeteria upsetting. I think I’ll stab myself in the eye with a plastic knife in protest.

  74. 74.

    Ash Can

    @BGinCHI: I’ll be at that game too. Boo all you want. Just don’t do the wave, or I’ll have to haul your ass out under the Red Line el tracks and explain a few things about Wrigley Field decorum to you.

  77. 77.

    JGabriel

    DougJ:

    Yeah, I find Dems’ decision to punt on the Bush tax cuts profoundly depressing.

    Assuming it’s the Dems final decision. If the base is energetic enough to keep lobbying for it to be passed before the elections, then maybe we’ll get something done; if we don’t keep pushing for it, then, yeah, we really are screwed.

    I mean, seriously, how many times were we told HCR was dead? Sure, it’s less than a lot of us wanted, but it passed.

    Let’s not give up on it yet. Keep calling your Congresspeople and let them have it. Politely, of course.

    .

  80. 80.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @BGinCHI:

    My favorite name for a Shakespeare-inspired play: Tight-Ass Androgynous .

  81. 81.

    Dennis SGMM

    That was a close one! For a while it looked like the Democrats might fail to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. Thank goodness that they learned so well to roll over and play dead during the Bush years.

  83. 83.

    New Yorker

    More obtuseness from Reason:

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/22/why-isnt-the-golden-state-havi?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

    Yet there they are, protesting not just excessive taxation but excessive spending. They are exercised about the very same thing — being preyed upon by a self-enriching public-sector bishopric — that motivates the Tea Partiers. And with the city government facing a massive general fund shortfall and destroyed credit, they can’t avoid the deadly question “What will you cut?”

    Once again, missing the giant elephant (no pun intended) in the room: the Tea Partiers aren’t (at least exclusively) motivated by taxes and spending. They’re motivated by hysterical paranoia about losing “their” country. That’s why this only happened after the sooper sekrit Kenyan Muslim marxist nazi took over. For 8 years, they had no problem with the drunken-sailor spending when it was their guys who were responsible for it.

    And the fact that Mexicans are allowed to vote in this country, as in Bell, CA, is only going to make the Tea Partiers more upset.

  84. 84.

    Corner Stone

    @Violet:

    Honestly, my Congressperson needs seriously better interns.

    You know who else had a seriously misinformed intern, don’t you?
    That’s right.

  86. 86.

    BGinCHI

    @eemom: Oh God, no, please not that.

    Don’t make me bomb this thread with evidence. That would totally screw up the vibe around here.

    And seriously, no, only the whackos argue about that….

  88. 88.

    Kryptik

    @eemom:

    I’m not as fanatical as some about football, but the subject is less painful than hearing ‘Reason Our Political Discourse Is Utterly Broken #19457563’ discussed ad infinitum, right?

  92. 92.

    Huggy Bear

    Hey, can someone figure out how to make it possible for both Rahm Emmanuel and Jessie Jackson Jr. to get elected mayor of Chicago? They could just sit in the mayor’s office and call each other f#cking ret@rds all day. Might not help, but can’t hurt.

  96. 96.

    mak

    “I’ve come to accept the prettier, less skinny Sarah Palin interpretation, but to me she looks like someone from an 80s movie, though I’m not sure who.”

    I’m seeing Katie Couric with a cheaper hairdo and Walgreens eyeglasses.

  97. 97.

    Steve

    @Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: I’m not enough of a Firebagologist to know what that means, but there’s plenty of evidence this is true – although I’m not sure it ought to be overdramatized. Part of it is that Democrats are terrified of constantly having to denounce and reject independent groups that get out of line, while Republicans basically don’t sweat it.

  100. 100.

    John S.

    I politely called Ron Klein’s office and told them that I don’t look forward to Allen West as a congressman, but he’s going to lose a LOT of Democrats for pulling his Blue Dog routine and signing onto to Rep. Adler’s wet kiss to the wealthy. I seriously don’t know what the fuck he is thinking. His district is in Broward and south Palm Beach. You do NOT need to be a Blue Dog to win here. Fucking idiot.

    That said, incompetent is still better than evil.

  101. 101.

    aimai

    @Violet:

    Yeah, I called my congressman’s washington office while they were voting on a very important matter a couple of years ago and the interns didn’t know they were voting–although it had been announced hours ago–and also didn’t know what his position would be. In movies everyone always has Cspan up and about a million tvees monitoring the news but I guess they are all tuned to Fox or something.

    aimai

  102. 102.

    burnspbesq

    @Brachiator:

    Re extension of the Bush tax cuts:

    Depends on what your objective is.

    If your objective is to remind the bottom 98 percent of the income distribution that the Republican party wants to fuck them, then yes, vote early and vote often. Give the Republicans as many opportunities as possible to deliver that message.

    If your objective is to do something that will actually stimulate the economy, tax cuts – even middle-class tax cuts – have a smaller impact than the government actually spending the same amount of money itself.

  103. 103.

    Almost PhD

    I just called Rep. Steny Hoyer’s office to let him know that I really wish they would go ahead and have that vote on middle class tax cuts before the election. Did you call him? 202.225.4131

  105. 105.

    aimai

    @John S.:

    The Mantra I’m choking out through clenched teeth is this:

    The Democrats deserve to lose this election/But we don’t [ deserve the Republicans winning it.]

    That’s basically it. In a just world the Democrats would lose *to a better party* but in the real world they lose, and we lose. Even one step forward and two steps back eventually gets you somewhere.

    aimai

  106. 106.

    Steve

    @Kryptik: More or less, although the thing is, we’re not really talking about the “fringe” here – we’re talking about mainstream organizations like Planned Parenthood. Maybe it’s all a metaphor for how Republicans want to empower free enterprise and Democrats want centralized control of everything… or maybe not.

  107. 107.

    Kryptik

    @Almost PhD:

    Silly little liberal, thinking Hoyer will listen to your little call. Now if you were an affirmed Tea Partier, then your opinion might have merit!

    (Sorry, it’s better I snark and snap out then punch everything I see right now in rage)

  111. 111.

    burnspbesq

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I think Democrats play like a small-conference college basketball team in the NCAA tournament… they’re up by 11 against a powerhouse from a major conference. If the other guys get a three, it’s a single-digit lead, and everything’s going to unravel quickly from there. So in order to avoid that, they play really tight, start taking too many passes, start turning the ball over, then the other guys finally do hit that three, and they end up making happen exactly what they were afraid would happen by trying so hard to prevent it.

    Who’s going to be the Democratic Ali Farokmanesh?

  112. 112.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Kryptik: True, but that has also driven a lot of moderates and even conservatives away from the Republican party. The polls still show that no one much likes Republicans. The Democrats’ problem is that there’s been such an influx of conservatives into the supposedly leftier party that they just don’t agree on very many things at all anymore, and the Republicans have gone with this unprecedented all-filibuster strategy that requires 60 votes on everything.

    I think what we’ve ended up with is a Republican party that is almost entirely fringy and a Democratic party that includes liberals, moderates, and conservatives. So what comes out of the Democratic side is already all watered down ideologically, because of the conservative influence; and then the Republicans just block it anyway because they’re not just conservative, they’re entirely anti-governance. They don’t want conservative government, they want a do-nothing government. It’s not left vs. right, it’s policy vs. no-policy.

  113. 113.

    BGinCHI

    @burnspbesq: Not seeing it. I’m back to Lewinsky after the many excellent suggestions here. Dreyfus a close second, but she’s too likable to saddle with that. Plus, her husband is way cool.

  117. 117.

    Lurked

    @Steve:

    Democrats are terrified of constantly having to denounce and reject independent groups that get out of line, while Republicans basically don’t sweat it.

    YES!

  119. 119.

    eemom

    @BGinCHI:

    drat. I’m not only old, I’m obsolete. I thought I remembered it being seriously debated among smart people at some point — but who knows how long ago that was.

    It at least had a good “elitist” meme to it, as I recall.

  120. 120.

    FlipYrWhig

    @eemom: Nah, it’s always been kind of like debating whether the moon landing was a hoax that took place on a soundstage.

  121. 121.

    RalfW

    re: Punting on tax cuts for teh rich, sometimes I think people are Republicans just because they don’t want that capitol “L” for loser on their foreheads.

  122. 122.

    BGinCHI

    @burnspbesq: Amen, brother. The lads are killing me again this year. And I thought I was already dead.

    You see that 95th minute goal by Sunderland against Arsenal?? How sweet was that.

  125. 125.

    Martin

    @August J. Pollak: And who is going to bring that bill to the floor? Dems still decide what does and doesn’t get a vote, and Dems will still rank on every committee those bills need to get through before they hit the floor even if they do convince Reid to give it a vote.

    Are people still that stupid about how much power is contained in just being the majority party, regardless of whether your senator or congressman is a douchebag Dem or not?

  126. 126.

    BGinCHI

    @eemom: beats talking about half the other shit people talk about. But no, it’s only a fringe.

    A great book on the subject (with a really bad, misleading title) is The Genius of Shakespeare, by Jonathan Bate.

  128. 128.

    burnspbesq

    @BGinCHI:

    Tom Hicks is the Devil Incarnate. Dumbshit should sell the Dallas Stars to Mark Cuban and use the proceeds to pay down Liverpool’s debt. But noooooooooooo …

    Pray for RBS to foreclose next month.

  129. 129.

    Brachiator

    @burnspbesq:

    Depends on what your objective is.

    Do the Democrats even have an objective?

    And I don’t see any upside to pushing for the tax cuts and then pivoting and declaring “Well, you know, tax cuts don’t really matter as long as we do this other stuff.”

    Also, this kind of thing can’t help:

    Millions of seniors face double-digit hikes in their Medicare prescription premiums next year unless they shop for cheaper coverage.
    __
    A new analysis of government data finds that premiums will go up an average of 10 percent among the top plans that have signed up some 70 percent of seniors. That’s according to Avalere Health, a private research firm that crunched the numbers.

    This kind of thing gives the GOP an easy swing: “The Democrats want to enact big, expensive new health care programs and they can’t even control the costs of the ones that are already in place.” Doesn’t matter how this actually came to pass.

    The Democrats lack Bush and Cheney’s deadpan calm no matter how much crap blew back on them. They would lie and deny, but relentlessly stay on message without regard to messy reality: pro tax cuts, pro de-regulation, pro military intervention, etc.

  132. 132.

    Stillwater

    @FlipYrWhig: I think Democrats play like a small-conference college basketball team in the NCAA tournament… they’re up by 11 against a powerhouse from a major conference. If the other guys get a three, it’s a single-digit lead, and everything’s going to unravel quickly from there.

    Dude, morzer and I already covered this: the phrase ‘collapsing like the Senate Dems’ is the new cool dis. I even heard one of the Mikes in the morning (I think it was the little one) use it the other day: “Eli never stepped up, and the Giants collapsed like the Senate Democrats’.

  134. 134.

    burnspbesq

    @BGinCHI:

    I’m going to Old Trafford next month. I may pick up one of those green and gold scarves. The Glasers mystify me: who in their right minds would hold onto the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and risk losing control of Manchester United?

  135. 135.

    Martin

    I’m confused why everyone is in a panic over this stuff. The tax cuts expire if nobody does anything. The GOP won’t compromise. I don’t think Obama will sign a full extension. If the left feels that we need to increase revenue, then we shouldn’t be all bent out of shape that the Dems aren’t voting on this. Best case scenario: they never pass an extension.

  138. 138.

    srv

    I think now would be an apropos time for John Cole to become a Republican again.

    It’s obvious being a Democrat provides no benefit or influence on political discourse, because this party has no rational behavior that can be divined, except skull fucking itself.

    Returning to the fold would probably make him a hero again, and he might be able to mitigate some insanity at the margins from 2011-2013. I can’t do it, I don’t think Doug could keep up the facade long enough, but maybe John can channel his inner bubba and make a difference.

    *I mean, it’s not like he ever tires from punching hippies.
    ** And I mean that in a good way.

  140. 140.

    Ash

    I haven’t commented on BJ for a while now. I moved to D.C. for grad school a couple months ago, and somehow, I’m now less-aware of what’s going on in this city than I was when I lived in bumfuck Illinois.

  141. 141.

    Chyron HR

    Monica Lewinsky
    __
    Chunky Reese Witherspoon
    __
    Lea Thompson, from Back to the Future

    thnks blln juce i cm on kybrd it dprtmnt fil cmplnt lttr

  143. 143.

    garage mahal

    Do the Democrats even have an objective?

    Surrender on issues that have heavy popular support in the electorate. On the tax cuts, I’m seeing headlines like “Senate leader: Congress won’t vote on tax cuts before elections”, which to many people probably just means Democrats won’t vote to lower taxes.

  144. 144.

    Cat Lady

    @DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.:

    I think you’ve been remiss with Mad Men open threads, but I’ve had such IP access problems so maybe I’ve missed them. I could talk about that show all day. I’m really loving this season, but I’m wondering where the civil rights action in the background catches up to SCDP (with the exception of Peggy), and where’s all the great music!11. One Stones song? Rly?

  146. 146.

    stuckinred

    @Cat Lady: People like the ones in MM weren’t listening to the Stones then! And all this agony about this yo-yo doctor going to the Nam. It ain’t like he’s going to be in the bush (so to speak)!

  147. 147.

    Rhoda

    The Obama folks are doing something right IMO. The last two, three weeks the President’s poll numbers have been rising and the Republicans generic poll numbers have fallen and in the polls released the registered voters # show that the majority still favor democrats while the live voter model ( a guess) is favoring the Republicans by wide margins.

    So, I feel good about where we are.

    Dems suck and are shooting themselves in the foot on the tax issue; but the Republicans are slitting their wrists with Palin like candidates. I kinda feel the WH has set a clear contrast on the tax thing for those who want to campaign on the issue to seize in their local elections. I think the DEMS will keep the House by 221 and get 51 seats in the senate (and that includes Rubio winning FL as Crist and Meeks split the Democratic vote).

  149. 149.

    Tom Q

    @Martin: I think you’re correct in the sense that it would take way more than is ever likely to happen for the upper income tax cut extensions to occur. Worst case, all the cuts expire. But alot of us feel this is a slam dunk for Democrats: to let the upper income cuts go, but keep the middle class ones around, and watch the GOP fight tooth and nail for the over-$250,000 crowd. And it appalls us to watch a narrow sliver of the Dem caucus fight bringing it to a vote, for irrational reasons.

    Matt Bai has written a ton of stupid stuff, but two months or so he pinpointed something that doesn’t get discussed enough and that explains alot of the fringe Dem stupidity. After Obama’s rousing election, the White House was ready to proceed as if the DC environment had totally changed in their favor. But the conservaDems — call them Blue Dogs, DLC, whatever — thought different. To them, the screwups of the Bush administration had made the GOP temporarily unelectable, but the country’s political lean remained the same, the trusty old center-right. Never mind that Dems had now won 4 of 5 presidential popular votes; in these folks’ minds, it was still 1984, and Ronnie Reagan was going to come and hurt them if they strayed from the favor-the-rich consensus.

    Obama could hardly have done more on this issue: he’s stood firmly for letting the rich tax cuts expire, and, by every poll, he’s won the debate. But the Blue Dogs — as impervious to evidence as Fox News watchers — insist on taking a different path. It’s maddening.

    But, everyone should understand: first, it’s not even close to all Democrats; just enough to kill every promising initiative, in a world where every GOP senator would vote no on gravity of Obama proposed it. And, as satisfying as it might be to see some of these idiots go down for their perfidy, they’d take good people — Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the American public — down with them. So, be disappointed — make calls to try to force them to change their minds — but, in the end, if you’re in their district/state, vote for them regardless, in the name of saving some hope for this country.

  153. 153.

    Nick

    @Tom Q:

    Obama could hardly have done more on this issue: he’s stood firmly for letting the rich tax cuts expire, and, by every poll, he’s won the debate. But the Blue Dogs—as impervious to evidence as Fox News watchers—insist on taking a different path. It’s maddening.

    so much for the bully pulpit.

  155. 155.

    MTiffany

    @Brachiator:

    Do the Democrats even have an objective?

    Yes, to not make the Republican bullies mad. And the best way they’ve found to avoid catching the bully’s attention is to cower in the corner with their hands over their head whining, “I’ll give you my lunch money and do your homework for you. Just please don’t hurt me.”

  156. 156.

    Brachiator

    @Martin:

    I’m confused why everyone is in a panic over this stuff. The tax cuts expire if nobody does anything.

    Politics is nasty business, and Obama and the Democrats might have been outplayed again.

    It’s not just that the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. It’s also that some middle class tax cuts passed in 2001 also expire in 2011, having been extended and sweetened as part of the stimulus package. This means a tax increase for many in the middle class and reduced relief for the poor unless Congress passes a tax extenders bill.

    A CCH analysis gives an example of a couple with 2 children, making about $140,000 and eligible for the child tax credit.

    With what they call an “Obama modified sunset” extending these provisions, their 2011 tax bill would be $19,513. If the provisions are allowed to sunset, their 2011 tax bill will be $26,343.

    The House had previously passed the bill, but the Senate is stalling. The GOP obviously has some maneuvering room and may be able to make the Democrats blink in order to get something done.

    The media is bad at explaining economics. They are even worse at explaining the details of tax policy. Unfortunately, the Democrats are pretty bad at this too, and bad at getting their message out. How many people knew that Obama had proposed permanently extending the $1,000 child tax credit? But we all know loads about the battle over tax cuts for the rich.

    And so it goes.

  157. 157.

    Martin

    @Tom Q: Yeah, I agree that this ought to be a legislative slam-dunk for the Dems. Make it simple – bring one bill to the floor extending the tax cuts for each income bracket. Start at the bottom and work up making the framing clear that it’s not a tax cut ‘For everyone earning xxx dollars or more’ rather it’s a cut ‘for the next x thousands of dollars above this value’. So long as the first bill is passed, 100% of the tax base gets a cut.

    Put everyone on the record. Done. Dems win regardless of the outcome.

  167. 167.

    Martin

    @Brachiator: Sorry, I don’t care about the family of 4 earning $140K. I care about the family of 4 with two unemployed parents. Everyone should care about that more.

    Higher taxes for people with jobs, then create more stimulus for people with no jobs. Once again, I don’t understand how a 0% taxation rate creates jobs.

  168. 168.

    Glenn Hauman

    If I lived in Arizona, I’d vote for Sharron Angle.

    If you lived in Arizona and voted for Sharron Angle, I’d be impressed.

    She’s running in Nevada.

    You’re thinking of Brewer and McCain.

  169. 169.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Martin:

    Start at the bottom and work up making the framing clear that it’s not a tax cut ‘For everyone earning xxx dollars or more’ rather it’s a cut ‘for the next x thousands of dollars above this value’. So long as the first bill is passed, 100% of the tax base gets a cut.

    Right, but what the Blue Dogs are afraid of is that eventually the liberals peel off and refuse to authorize tax cuts at the high end of the scale. They fear that that will turn into an ad about how they raised taxes by $X billion. They might admit that your description is _true_, but the falsehoods Republicans will spread about them will damage them. That’s why they don’t want to go along with the split into multiple votes.

  170. 170.

    Nick

    @Martin:

    Start at the bottom and work up making the framing clear that it’s not a tax cut ‘For everyone earning xxx dollars or more’ rather it’s a cut ‘for the next x thousands of dollars above this value’.

    dude, you’ve already lost half the country. This is as simple as we could’ve made it?

  171. 171.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Brachiator: I thought you meant Belinda Carlisle, and then I realized that might work too. Another button-nosed voluminous-haired pop figure from the same era.

  174. 174.

    Nick

    @FlipYrWhig:

    right, but what the Blue Dogs are afraid of is that eventually the liberals peel off and refuse to authorize tax cuts at the high end of the scale. They fear that that will turn into an ad about how they raised taxes by $X billion. They might admit that your description is true, but the falsehoods Republicans will spread about them will damage them. That’s why they don’t want to go along with the split into multiple votes.

    That’ll happen anyway…but I don’t think that’s the problem, the problem, I’m sure and will find out for certain tomorrow, is the votes ARE THERE for $250k and the leadership doesn’t want it to pass.

    44 Dems wrote to Pelosi asking to extend them…178 Republicans plus 44 Democrats = 220.

  175. 175.

    Martin

    @Nick: Since 100% of the commentary I’ve heard on the tax cuts is wrong, then yeah.

    The cuts on income up to $250K isn’t a tax cut for 98% of the people, it’s a tax cut for 100% of the people, just not on 100% of the earned income. If it was a tax cut only on the first $5 earned, it’d still be a tax cut for 100% of the people.

    This is pissing me off – the Republicans are running this zombie income lie through every single news program and I’ve yet to see a single refutation to it – even from people like Maddow who typically excel at uncovering this shit.

  177. 177.

    Nick

    @Martin:

    The cuts on income up to $250K isn’t a tax cut for 98% of the people, it’s a tax cut for 100% of the people, just not on 100% of the earned income. If it was a tax cut only on the first $5 earned, it’d still be a tax cut for 100% of the people. This is pissing me off – the Republicans are running this zombie income lie through every single news program and I’ve yet to see a single refutation to it – even from people like Maddow who typically excel at uncovering this shit.

    Because this

    TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE!

    is easier to get across than this

    he cuts on income up to $250K isn’t a tax cut for 98% of the people, it’s a tax cut for 100% of the people, just not on 100% of the earned income. If it was a tax cut only on the first $5 earned, it’d still be a tax cut for 100% of the people.

    Hell, most people think their taxes went UP since Obama took office, despite the fact their motherjumping paychecks tell a different story.

  178. 178.

    Brachiator

    @Martin:

    Sorry, I don’t care about the family of 4 earning $140K. I care about the family of 4 with two unemployed parents. Everyone should care about that more.

    I picked an example at random that was within the sweet spot of the group that Obama is clearly trying to speak to, you know, people making less than $250,000.

    But I also noted that the impact is bad for groups making less. Do you understand how the child tax credit works? It ain’t just for the upper crust, and even phases out at certain income levels. Even groups who would get refundable tax credits because they have no taxable income would get less if these provisions are allowed to sunset.

    This year, a married couple who both receive unemployment compensation got to exclude as much as $4,800 of their unemployment compensation from their taxable income. This exclusion goes away. Adoption credits, tax credits for employer-provided child care facilities, educational assistance programs, student loan interest deductions, the Earned Income Credit, which was specifically designed to help the poorest paid Americans, they all take a hit.

  179. 179.

    MTiffany

    @Martin:

    Once again, I don’t understand how a 0% taxation rate creates jobs.

    Well that’s because you’re a liberal, queer-hugging, soshulist, liberal, abortionist, liberal, America-hating liberal who doesn’t understand what the free market is about or how the real world works. You see, by lowering marginal tax rates, you leave more money in the hands of the wealthy. The wealthy, being wealthy, deserve all of their money because they know how to spend money to make money, and when the wealthy spend their money, or invest it (because spending and investing really are just two different sides of the same [gold] coin) some of that money gets spent paying salaries of lesser people who do things for the wealthy that the wealthy ought not have to do for themselves. And those people who serve the wealthy employ people below them to serve them, and so on and so forth until that money from the wealthy works its way down to you and your troglodyte, America-hating commie fascist Jesus-hating liberal undeserving friends who think that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
    But I know that because you’re a pinko commie soshulist, you’ll probably choose not to undestand this very clear and thorough explanation I’ve taken my precious time to write out for you, in the same way that queers and dykes choose to lust after members of the same gender, making God angry, Jesus cry, America weak, and Ted Haggard and Eddie Long very, very uncomfortable. Because we all know what the word “choose” is code for, don’t we, you baby-killing Satan worshippers! So if you choose not to understand my very clear explanation on how a zero percent tax rate creates jobs, then the only explanation you’ll understand (and thus deserve) is:
    Shut up! That’s how.

  180. 180.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Nick:

    the problem, I’m sure and will find out for certain tomorrow, is the votes ARE THERE for $250k and the leadership doesn’t want it to pass.

    Hmm, that’s an interesting idea. If you’re right, splitting the votes would result in

    1) Liberal Democrats (L) plus Blue Dog Democrats (BD) voting for the middle-class tax cuts.
    2) BDs and all Republicans ( R ) voting for the upper-class extra tax cuts.

    If you think this is how it will play out…

    If you’re a member of the BDs, you might think, if we’re going to end up voting for the whole set of tax cuts, why not just have it in one vote?

    If you’re a member of the Rs, you might think, hey, we can vote for 1) too, and that way the only people left voting against 2) will be the Ls. Thus you can run ads about how the Ls tried to raise taxes by billions of dollars, but you stopped them. BDs can do that too, as a kind of stab in the back to the Ls.

    Right? Hmm…

  182. 182.

    JMY

    Honestly, I couldn’t be the President, b/c I would be inclined to strangle damn near everyone in the Capitol Building. This place ain’t worth governing when you can’t even get people confirmed to the positions in which you nominated them for, which are essential for our gov. to function, b/c some Senator is having a hissy fit over some bullshit. Or you can’t rely on them to vote on tax-cuts b/c they are worried about campaign ads.

  183. 183.

    danimal

    Martin, in an ideal world, I’d like to see the whole Bush tax regime expire on December 31st, replaced with a modest, less costly Obama proposal with more progressive rates.

    In the world we are entering, I’m terrified that the Bush tax rates will be extended for everyone after the election, giving the GOP a political win while continuing a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility that will destroy our nation’s infrastructure and financial stability. Continuing this tax policy is monstrously wrong-headed and destructive; sadly it is very attractive to the very rich who back congress members in both parties.

  184. 184.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    I don’t understand why they don’t let President Obama head the Democratic Party.

    > Blue Dogs! Firebaggers! Glenn Greenwald! Rahm!

    Also too, you forgot balloonbaggers!

  185. 185.

    FlipYrWhig

    @danimal: Like you I have a very bad feeling that we’re losing the ability to raise taxes on anyone for any reason, and, like happened in California, that’s going to start to pinch worse and worse as the years go by.

  187. 187.

    Mnemosyne

    @danimal:
    @FlipYrWhig:

    Me three. I believe we have now passed Day 80 of not having a motherfucking budget in California because there are just enough Republicans in the legislature to block any hint of raising or creating taxes. Apparently we’re going to go on budget-less forever, because California Republicans insist that the budget gap can only be closed through cuts and there aren’t enough available cuts in the state to do it.

    Frankly, that’s why I can’t get too weepy at the prospect of the Bush tax cuts sunseting. They were stupid to begin with, they shoved us into a nasty deficit hole, and the sooner we leave them behind, the better.

  188. 188.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    OT: I like it that DeFazio and Wyden are my guys but I sure am getting sick of their commercials about ‘bucking the administration’ and ‘voted against the stimulus’. I know they are trying to counter the teabaggers and repubs but it really sucks hearing it.

    DeFazio has a zealously religious, global warming is a fraud, teabagger nut who thinks the government is keeping his “revolutionary medical advance” called “metabolomics” away from the people that he is running against this fall.

    So much crazy…

  189. 189.

    AdrianLesher

    So, you really want to put McConnell and Boehner in charge just to spite the disappointing Democrats? That will work out well.

Comments are closed.