Like DougJ, I had an immediate negative reaction to Bernard’s piece, and since I was already planning to write about that Yglesias piece (and another issue raised by Glenn Greenwald), you’re going to get another “front pagers disagree” post which you can read after the break. Let’s start with this, from Ezra Klein:
The central difficulty of covering this presidential campaign — which is to say, of explaining Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s disparate plans for the country — is the continued existence of what we might call the policy gap. The policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t.
If you’re the Man Without Policies, your election strategy has to be to attack the other guy, and if you’re a Republican backed by the Fox News noise machine, your method for accomplishing that goal is a time-honored one for Republicans: distortions, lies and lots of trivial distractions. In the context of Romney’s effort to make this election about little nothings, Rubio’s Olympic tax statement was an finely wrought piece of bait. If Obama had hesitated, or worse yet, given some kind of lecture about the importance of taxes, I can only imagine the kind of noise that would be ginned up by Rubio and the rest of the Fox crowd.
I agree with Bernard and Matt Yglesias that this little nothingburger tax break–which if my math is right is not much more than a million bucks in lost taxes–is stupid. It’s stupidity squared to do anything but say “sure” to some hypothetical bill that will add a few lines to the hundreds of thousands of pages of tax code. The alternative is a long battle over an issue that would probably poll 80/20 in favor, which would end predictably with Obama compromising in some way, and Republicans triumphantly ramming a bill through Congress for his signature. Would that have been a step forward in reversing 30 years of anti-government, anti-tax rhetoric?
Let’s turn to another battle that bothers people, and rightly so, a provision in a veterans’ assistance bill that mandates that protests by the Westboro Baptist Church occur at least 300 feet from a military burial. That’s almost certainly unconstitutional, and Glenn Greenwald gives Obama a good tweak for signing it at the end of a recent post. Obama supported this bill since he was in the Senate. I’m not surprised, because I assume he did it for the same reason he gave a quick positive response to the Olympics bill: to avoid having it used as a distraction.
I don’t like the policy embodied in either of these decisions, but I understand the politics, and I don’t think they’re simply related to the current election. One of the major debates among Democrats for the entire Obama Administration has been over the best way to route around the noise machine to put our policies on the table for discussion. Obama’s habit of saying “sure” to a lot of small issues, and slow-playing others (like gay rights), has been far too conservative for a lot of us, but I really have a hard time imagining another strategy that would be more effective. That’s why I had such a disagreement with Bernard’s post–I can’t see him offering a solid alternative to the strategy he so clearly doesn’t like, and fighting every little battle like the Olympics one might sound good in theory but it’s political death.
Walker
Dealing with Republicans is like dealing with toddlers; pick your battles appropriately.
WJS
People do not like being told what they can and can’t be outraged about. You can talk til you are blue in the face, but you’re not going to move people off of their pet issue if they think they’re even remotely right about something. The Obot/Firebagger conflict is not going to be won any time soon.
We have the best possible President we could have gotten in 2008. It’s been good for America, bad for being an outraged progressive/lefty. Back in the day, it was so easy to rail against Bush–now you have to deal with the consequences of governing. It’s no fun playing defense all the time when the game is centered on offense–taking shots, ripping things up, and running wild with the rhetoric. I miss those days, too. But them is the breaks.
Steve
Let’s flip this around. Can anybody name an issue which fits the following criteria: (1) the Democratic position is the overwhelmingly popular side; (2) the issue is mostly symbolic and makes little substantive difference either way; and (3) the Republicans fight tooth and nail against it?
Shawn in ShowMe
That’s the difference between you and firebaggers. They don’t even have a Schoolhouse Rock understanding of politics. They can’t move beyond reruns of My Little Pony.
I’d actually prefer if they were all bigots because at least the concern trolling would serve some purpose. As it stands, the only folks profiting from firebagging are straight-up grifters like Hamsher and Greenwald.
Narcissus
Actually I’ve stopped reading these little internecine dust-ups
weaselone
Republicans have been holding their breath a long time. Unfortunately they have only suffered brain damage, not passed out or turned blue.
arguingwithsignposts
@Steve:
This isn’t really a criteria, since that’s pretty much any Democratic issue.
different-church-lady
Are buffer zones around abortion clinics unconstitutional?
mistermix
@different-church-lady: I don’t know but the Supremes have ruled on the Westboro issue already so we know about the law Obama just signed.
General Stuck
That would be stupid. Obama doesn’t do stupid, with a few exceptions filed under human imperfections. Taxes that need to be raised, are best referenced to the rich, and worst refered to everybody else.
And recovering republicans probly need to spend zero time at FDL and the like, and more time in my personally accredited Obot University cult conversion program toward a healthy pragmatic liberal outlook on life. It’s free, with $99 dollar admission fee that is not a tax and shan’t be spoke of again.
Though I got to admit, Bernard’s last thread was a riot of firebagging, the spirit of, we haven’t had here since the cows came home.
But on a semi serious note. I think Obama defuses issues the right wing is passionate about, by offering small political bribes, if you will. With the always overarching concept that is true of Americans not caring much for tight assed ideologues. And keeping the ones on the right wing fed with small controlled portions of what they crave, whilst saving the full meal for his self. It is the difference between policy implications for taxing the wealthy in this country, and letting slide 79 athletes who have dedicated their lives to representing their country on the world stage. Discretion and better parts of valor, and all that kind of shit.
Politics is political. and you do them smartly, or lose.
the Conster
q1
MattF
Here’s the basic example: What do you do about the cute 8-year old with a lemonade stand that violates a dozen health and safety regulations? What should happen, IMO, is that the bureaucrats have do do their job, which is to order it shut it down, and then the relevant political executive (County Exec, Chair of County Council, whatever), has to order the police not to enforce the bureaucrat’s order. Not pretty, but it’s the way politics actually works.
Balconesfault
I do like the comment about an additional line in the tax code … while Obama shouldn’t be fighting this fight, liberal and moderate pundits should be pointing out “this is why the GOP is completely full of bullcrap when they talk about wanting to simplify the tax code. The GOP fights tooth and nail, day in and day out, to complicate the tax code … sometimes for grandstanding (like this issue), and usually to reward big buck donors with big buck tax code benefits.”
Instead, the liberals whine about Obama. Idiots.
Rob in CT
The narrative does need to change, but I’m with those who point out that this isn’t going to be an instantaneous U-turn.
I think “John” from the Bernard thread had a point when he brought this up:
Whoever is inaugurated in January, the American people will have to pay Mr. Reagan’s bills. The budget will be squeezed. Taxes will go up. And anyone who says they won’t is not telling the truth to the American people. By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let’s tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.There’s another difference. When he raises taxes, it won’t be done fairly. He will sock it to average-income families again, and leave his rich friends alone. And I won’t stand for it. And neither will you and neither will the American people.To the corporations and freeloaders who play the loopholes or pay no taxes, my message is: Your free ride is over.
Wow, huh? Looking back, that looks like the stone cold truth. Dude got crushed. Sure, there was the funny-looking tank picture. But c’mon. That wasn’t why.
It’s a tricky thing. You do have to push back against the Randoid anti-tax idiocy. But you also have to pick your battles well.
jp7505a
GOP strategy is death by a thousand cuts in responding to all these things. They can invent ‘outrage’ faster than a speeding bullet can respond. Wasn’t it Twain who said a lie get’s half way around the world before the truth get’s it’s shoes on. And today truth will never catchup. The right is still talking about how Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
That’s what is nice about Harry Reid/taxes and the steelworker/heathcare issues. Turnabout is fair play in this case. Maybe these two items do not meet the fact checker seal of approval but since the MSM claims both sides do, its time for the dem’s to really be guilty of doing it. Better to be hung for a wolf than a sheep
Davis X. Machina
Doesn’t differ materially from Clinton’s whole administration after the ’94 mid-terms except the issues — welfare ‘reform’, DADT, DOMA, — weren’t small.
Yet Clinton remains the beau ideal for Democratic presidents.
Folks — at least the ones who didn’t want Eugene V. Deb’s first term — wanted Clinton’s third term. They got Clinton’s third term. And now they’re complaining about it.
different-church-lady
After getting involved in this dustup a bit last night, I had some thinking time and believe I had the following insight: the concept of moving away from anti-tax zeitgeist is an important one, but the negative reaction comes from linking that important concept to such a trivial little example. The conflation of such a tiny, populist tax exemption with the larger problem of opposing sane, functional tax levels in general is simply not productive.
If your entire model for understanding politics is trench warfare, then yes, OMG, Obama gave away a trench! But some people realize the battle is not fought on a single front. If somehow Obama manages to get through the sunset of the Bush tax breaks on income over $250k, it’s (a) going to pay for the populist Olympic “stunt” a billion times over, and (b) lead the way to the next battle front (by which time, hopefully, restoring tax levels on the middle class won’t hurt so damn much).
I just really don’t understand how someone can look at the continued push for that sunset and then get all hung up on the fact that he’s giving away 10 feet of ground somewhere unimportant. It doesn’t work unless your understanding of political fights is entirely linear.
I suppose there’s one way in which it does work: if you’ve got column inches to fill and you don’t mind undermining the larger war in order to fill them.
NotMax
@Rob in CT
That was Dukakis, not Mondale.
different-church-lady
@Rob in CT:
Pssst: Dukakis.
jp7505a
@Rob in CT: good point but I think that tank was 1988 and Mike Dukasis(sp)
MattF
@Rob in CT: Tank picture was Dukakis:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/dukakis.jpg
japa21
This is the problem I have with a lot of people who say that Obama should have approached things differently. I always ask “Well, what would you have done that had a snowball’s chance in heck of succeeding?”
The response is always something like, ” Well, I would have…shut up.”
Then I hear, “But he should have stood on principle, better to lose everything standing on principle than gaining something by compromising.” The stupidity, it hurts.
Johannes
First, the Supremes held that the picketing is protected speech, quite rightly, and thus couldn’t be a predicate for damages. (The opinion suggests that it is because the speech is about a matter of public concern, which could narrow speech protection down the line, in a worrying way). As to the statute signed by the President, it doesn’t contravene that ruling, but is couched as a time manner place restriction, which are often upheld. My take is that the provision barring protests in the two hours before and after the funeral effectively takes away the occasion of protest, and so violates the First Amendment. The Court could disagree, though, and deem it constitutional. I see nothing unconstitutional in the 300 foot restriction, which allows the protest, but limits altercation and disruption of the funeral. Greenwald has oversimplified this one.
the Conster
@the Conster:
ha ha. My cat Woody’s first comment. Good thing he doesn’t have thumbs.
I’ve retaken command of the keyboard after an epic battle. Carry on.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Rob in CT:
Well, the fact that Mondale had all the animal magnetism of Bob Newhart also had something to do with it.
Davis X. Machina
@Johannes:
A lawyer’s twitch. Advocates will do that.
Patricia Kayden
It’s okay fof BJ writers to disagree with each other. Makes this blog more interesting than everyone marching in lockstep.
Ezra Klein must have meant to say that Romneybot 2.0 has policies but won’t state them publicly because of course he has policies. Just not telling the hoi polloi. Until after he’s installed in the WH.
Bobby Thomson
@NotMax: Forget it, he’s rolling.
shortstop
@the Conster: Watch your back. He’s regrouping right now.
Mary
@Johannes: Agreed 100%. I would be SHOCKED if a 300 foot restriction was struck down as unconstitutional.
WJS
@the Conster: q1 is the opening gambit of some serious 11th Dimension Chess.
Davis X. Machina
@Mary: Read the majority in the Bong Hits for Jesus case, and tell me this Court would strike down the restriction.
If there’s anything more sacred than the War on (Some People Who Do Some) Drugs, it’s our fallen warriors.
They’ll carve out an exception, and distinguish whatever they have to to make it stick.
SatanicPanic
The teenager that they have paired with Nikki Six on his radio show was all upset about this last night “our tax system is the WORST in the world!” (is it? somehow I doubt that). This is just a nothing deal. Let them keep their winnings.
But just out of curiousity- how much are the winning? IIRC the first $74K of earnings abroad are not taxed, are they winning more than that?
Mark B.
I think the Republicans are running the only campaign they can run. If they get too much into Romney’s actual record, you will find out he enacted the same health care mandates he’s running against in Massachusetts. He’s never accomplished anything except running companies into the ground and extracting cash from the ashes. He has virtually no positives, except for great hair.
He can only win by demonizing Obama and appealing to the racism of his base. Which will get him close to winning, since there are a lot of racists in the USA. All he needs is for the economy to be a little worse in November, and for some of the vote suppression initiatives in swing states to keep enough blacks, poor people and students from voting.
different-church-lady
@SatanicPanic:
I would guess that because the money under discussion is from the US Olympic Committee, that would not be considered income earned overseas.
liberal
@Davis X. Machina:
Not among any of the Democrats I know personally.
Right. The spectrum of available political ideologies runs from Clinton on the center/center-right to Debs on the left, with nothing in-between.
General Stuck
@jp7505a:
That is because they were elected to government positions of power, for the purpose of seeing to it the government doesn’t do anything. The cognitive dissonance of their voters could fuel an infinite number of missions to Mars. Or, you could just call them morans that want government to stay out of their medicare. So it is easy to manufacture outrage, when there is nothing much else to do for the small government crowd. Liberals need to have serious policy debates for sausage making, which is a position of constant defense for using government to promote the general welfare. I think both Obama and Clinton are and were very good at riding this tiger, simultaneously placating the worst of right wing anti everything concerned with government, and moving substantial progressive policy initiatives at the same time. I think Obama has a more friendly pol playing field, his term coming after GWB, and the GOP implosion of 2008. Clinton had to manage, still firmly in the wake of the country and most voters big experiment with wingnut governance. Those voters still favor the white majority party, when they can, but there is much more baggage of fail and mistrust than there once was.
If you have followed polls the past fours years, and look at the internals of those polls, past the 50 50 split as the default yay/nay status, the public really does not have a good opinion of the republican party and its candidates and elected officials. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote for them, if bullshitted in the proper manner, but the love is gone, as is the lions share of credibility, except for the hard core base, of course.
mechwarrior online
Let’s get real many Democrats are as feverishly pro-market, low tax, ect as the right. Obama being one of them, which is why sane Republicans like Sullivan fall all over themselves to praise him for conservative policies.
The idea that Obama is “tricked” into lowering taxes, cutting entitlements, or whatever is insane. This is a president that talked about new deal programs being old and not worth anything right now, who’s blatantly pro Wall Street. He isn’t being tricked into anything, these are all policies and idelogical positions that he and many in the Democratic leadership believe and want.
Davis X. Machina
@liberal:
No one I know voted for Reagan.
different-church-lady
@General Stuck:
Or they can spend their time having internet flamewars about nothingburgers of effectively-symbolic tax exemptions.
Completley seriously, the GOP ain’t the only ones who can invent ‘outrage’ faster than a speeding bullet can respond.
different-church-lady
@Davis X. Machina:
That’s a good policy.
different-church-lady
@mechwarrior online: I’m still at more than a little bit of a loss to understand how a tax hike on income above $250k is to be considered “Pro Wall-Street”.
NotMax
As for Prof. Finel, have found his rhetorical and analytical abilities as presented thus far comparable to the culinary abilities of a cook who manages to suspend banana slices in a Jell-O mold and proudly presents it as haute cuisine.
Purely a personal choice, but if I now see his name attached to a post I just merrily scroll right on by and ignore him, a luxury his students – unfortunately – do not have.
To riff on an old saying (and yes, it is slightly sexist but such were the times of the original):
Brides disguise their shortcomings with mayonnaise, architects with ivy, academics with verbiage.
liberal
@Rob in CT:
Huh? If there’s a lesson in that election about the nation’s attitude about taxation, it’s surely “Americans want a big government, and all that entails, but they don’t want to pay for it,” which is a much harder thing to fight than pure Rand-ism and which isn’t going to be dealt with by some tactical decisions about which battles to fight.
Davis X. Machina
@different-church-lady: Even if the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 are allowed to expire, the people would still not have ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy.
So, yeah, it’s “Pro Wall-Street”.
NobodySpecial
@Rob in CT:
Well, no, the ‘why’ was that he was down 53-44 or so in the polls for most of ’84, and he ended up selecting Ferraro, and her hubby didn’t survive media scrutiny. Mondale was ALWAYS a longshot in that election though, and everyone with a pulse of honesty admits it.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to prove that people should never ever ever ever fight back against the anti-tax bandwagon. Mission accomplished, dude. I eagerly await our rollback to the original 1% tax.
SatanicPanic
@different-church-lady: Oh, OK, that makes a little more sense. Guess I should have read the Yglesias post, but it’s more fun to speculate without knowing the facts.
liberal
@Davis X. Machina:
You can snark all you want, but none of my family or friends who are committed Democrats liked Clinton all that much, because he was too far to the right.
Sure, they rallied around him during the impeachment process, and hated the Republicans, but that doesn’t mean they thought he was a good president.
I know it doesn’t fit your model that anyone who doesn’t worship Obama and think he’s the world’s greatest leader of all time is a wild-eyed, crazy yet inconsistent left-winger, but that’s the way it goes.
liberal
@different-church-lady:
Right, because any politician who only wants to give Wall St 95% of what it wants, instead of 1,000% of what it wants, must therefore be anti-Wall St.
different-church-lady
@Davis X. Machina: I can’t tell if you’re serious or not, but even if we raised all tax brackets to 5% higher than pre-Reagan levels, the people still wouldn’t have that.
Some shit like restoring Glass-Stegal might be some baby steps towards it, but not even close to getting there.
Sometimes I just wish people would be honest and say that anything short of ending capitalism isn’t going to be good enough for them.
different-church-lady
@liberal: Yeah, except I didn’t say he was anti-Wall Street either.
Oh, wait… it’s the internet. Why am I fucking bothering?
Just Some Fuckhead
There’s also the possibility it’s not about 11 dimensional chess but rather illustrative of Obama’s continuing post-partisanship, his contention that Democrats don’t have all the good ideas and his desire to appeal to mythical independent voters. That’s only been the underpinnings of his entire fucking presidency so far.
MattF
@Davis X. Machina: I remember my dad expected Adlai Stevenson to beat Eisenhower–everyone he knew was voting for Stevenson.
different-church-lady
@SatanicPanic:
Maybe, but it would have made your head hurt.
Hey, why not? It seems to be exactly what Yglesias did on this one.
Villago Delenda Est
@different-church-lady:
Given that I paid US income taxes every year I was stationed out of the US, well, yah.
The assumption in an exemption from US taxes if you’re working overseas is that you’re paying taxes of some type in the country you’re living in.
Since I was covered in Germany and Korea under the provisions of a SOFA, I didn’t pay German or Korean taxes (except for, in Germany, at least, the VAT, which is built into the the price of whatever good you’re purchasing), that assumption did not apply to me.
Culture of Truth
Where’s the beef?!?
liberal
@Mark B.:
Huh? The best thing for Romney to do is to blame Obama for the crappy economy.
While I think Obama has a lot to answer for (unlike most of the other commenters on this blog, who think Obama is the best of all possible presidents), it’s obvious that that would be terribly unfair, insofar as it wasn’t Obama’s fault he inherited the worst post-War downturn. But this kind of thing makes a huge difference at the polls.
What’s really interesting is Romney’s inability to stick to that issue. I was really worried about him winning the nomination, because he seemed much better organized than the other candidates. But his campaign tactics have been pathetic; instead of sticking to, basically, “I’m not Obama,” he’s gotten bogged down in the tax thing and other distractions.
different-church-lady
@Just Some Fuckhead: I wonder if anyone has considered that it might have been a populist bone he threw out there without thinking about it too terribly hard.
liberal
@different-church-lady:
Yeah, except that it was an entirely fair reading of your comment.
Oh, wait… it’s the internet. Why am I fucking bothering?
different-church-lady
@liberal: No, no, this is entirely my fault for not picking a side in the OBAMA ROCKS/OBAMA SUCKS wars and sticking to it ad absurdum.
Culture of Truth
Is there a link to that statement?
General Stuck
I think Obama IS the best possible democratic president within the current universe of competitors. If you don’t think so, give me a name you think would be better.
liberal
@Just Some Fuckhead:
No, the underpinning of his presidency has been a lackluster response to the greatest postwar recession (including almost nothing on the housing crash front or cleaning up Wall St.), continuing pouring blood and treasure down the rathole of Afghanistan, and so on.
Sure, it’s a hell of a lot better than what we’d have had with McCain (under whom the US would probably be a smoldering radioactive ruin after McCain got us in a shooting war with Russia over Georgia), but “I’m not as bad as the Republicans” is indeed hard to run on.
different-church-lady
@General Stuck: But how are we ever going to get better democratic presidents if we don’t destroy the insufficient ones we have now?
Davis X. Machina
@General Stuck: You mean I just can’t give you a better universe?
Culture of Truth
@liberal: What’s really interesting is Romney’s inability to stick to that issue. I was really worried about him winning the nomination, because he seemed much better organized than the other candidates. But his campaign tactics have been pathetic
That’s pretty much my thinking. I felt then and still do, to a certain extent, that a smooth talking succesful businessment who doesn’t breathe fire was the biggest threat to Obama in a down economy. But I assumed he wouldn’t run such a terrible campaign. It’s like Rick Perry got took over by a Lizard Person.
liberal
@MattF:
Yawn. My dad voted for Stevenson, wept when Eisenhower won, had no illusions that Stevenson was going to win, voted for Clinton, had no illusions of Clinton, voted for Obama, and thinks Obama is a craven wimp.
General Stuck
@Davis X. Machina:
This ain’t Star Trek, but some better firebaggers should be doable
Just Some Fuckhead
@liberal: That could have only been better with a swipe at Obots and a gratuitous personal attack on mistermix.
I know that’s not your style but I recognize potential.
Mary
@Davis X. Machina: I was agreeing that it would NOT be struck down.
Marc
@liberal:
Yawn yourself. You’re arrogant, tiresome, and you don’t speak for liberals. It’s pretty obvious that you’re just baiting people to get a rise out of them.
Having people like you pissing and moaning and bitching 24-7 doesn’t help progressive goals. It has convinced me, and a lot of other actual liberals, that the online progressive community acts like a group of spoiled brats and actively helps Republicans with their destructive and counter-productive behavior. And we react appropriately.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
@General Stuck:
By calling it a ‘fee’ instead of a ‘tax’ you’ll get bipartisan support for it.
(Edited: Misunderstood original post. Needz Moar Coffeez…)
General Stuck
@different-church-lady:
By and large, the scorched earth criticism of Obama isn’t about more better leftist candidates, it is IMO, more about a general beef with the form of government we have, that gets projected onto all candidates that would be viable for election to the democracy style of government that we have. And then there are those who just don’t like the sight of Barack Obama.
liberal
@Culture of Truth:
I can get the fact he’s not smooth-talking; some people can be very intelligent and/or very effective and not talk smoothly, say all sorts of things that are embarrassing, etc. (Though I agree with everyone here who thinks he’s oddly ill-equipped as a presidential candidate because of it.)
The strategy thing is another matter, though. If you asked yourself, what’s Obama’s singular weakness, you’d obviously say “the economy”. (Again, I’m speaking descriptively, about politics; not saying it’s Obama’s fault per se, or that a Republican would be better, blah blah blah.) As such, Romney’s mission should be to (a) focus on the economy, (b) talk up his end of things enough to hoodwink voters into thinking he’d be at least a modest improvement, without putting enough out there to get the sheeple and the press wise to the fact that his economic plans are a continuation of a bad Republican joke.
The fact that he can’t even do this makes me wonder how the hell he made all that money at Bain. Sure, I hate the Wall St guys at least as much as anyone commenting here, but I do think they’re smart, in the manner that many despicable malefactors can be smart.
Romney, I’m really starting to wonder.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Culture of Truth:
How would you know? Maybe there’d be a lot more tongue flickering?
Cassidy
Ooooohhhh….I see we have some new purity trolls. Very cool. We can use the squidcloud of butthurt line again and talk about ponies some more.
Marc
@General Stuck:
It’s about proving that they are better, and purer, than the people that they’re talking to.
different-church-lady
@Marc: There is no war quite like an internecine war.
@General Stuck: As I’ve said before, a lot of people who push the “both parties are alike” line are actually two-party people. It’s just that for them the two parties are “us” and “those bum politicians”.
Cassidy
“I’m not saying you murdered the guy, just sayin’ you’ve got a bloody knife in your hand.”
Holy fuckingstocks, just say what you want to say.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Cassidy:
My checklist in Bernie’s thread last night has been pretty dead-on so far. I think I need to add “name one person who would have been better”, though.
Davis X. Machina
@Mary:Oh, absolutely, I concur. Hugo Black is very, very dead — and couldn’t command a majority in First Amendment cases even when he wasn’t.
different-church-lady
@liberal:
Really, one doesn’t need competency to make a lot of money. In that world, being a borderline sociopath is much more the tool for the job.
Taylormattd
The real issue here is why people continue to listen to a word written by that Paultard Glenn Greenwald. The guy has demonstrated over and over and over that he operates on nothing but seething hatred of Barack Obama. He is not a liberal, he is a libertarian who now choose to ignore the ignorant and crazy religious fanatics in the republican party, and instead focus on trifling bullshit.
Cassidy
@Just Some Fuckhead: I stayed out of it. I understood his premise as well as his detractors and was way too tired to get into firebagger insulting. Normally, it wold be fun, but I had to go to the gym and watch beach volleybal.
General Stuck
@Marc:
No doubt, also too.
Culture of Truth
Maybe Mitt wasn’t ever very good at private equity, just failed up because his dad was once Time’s man of the year –the finanncial world’s Luke Russert.
More likely, however, is that his mad equity skills do not transfer well to running for office – in fact they may even hurt, since he may have assumed his past success guaranteed an efficient campaign without much effort. For example, he did not prepare for London trip, probably out of self-assurance / arrogance, and that was clearly a mistake.
Obama, on the other hand, appears to take nothing for granted and works very hard.
Incidentally, I think this a good trait in a President. The bin Laden raid was thoroughly prepared for in part because Obama insisted on it. The invasion of Iraq was poorly planned in part because George Bush has been bailed out of trouble his whole life.
different-church-lady
@Cassidy:
Wait, are you allowed to do both of those things at the same time? On the internet?
If only that were to happen much more often around here.
For the record, I think liberal is taking a lot of shit he/she doesn’t deserve based only on what being written in this thread. But perhaps there’s some history…
Taylormattd
@Just Some Fuckhead: you forgot to say that we were all clapping louder while he was punching hippies, slapping you in the face, failing to show leeeedership, and throwing you under the bus.
Culture of Truth
@Just Some Fuckhead: If sheds his skin it’s a clue
japa21
@liberal: Obama has made sure that Romney doesn’t ahve the opportunity to talk about the economy. Romney made it through the primaries based upon his ability to spend outrageous sums of money on negative advertising. His opponents couldn’t come close to matching that. He nebver had to be on the defensive.
Obama has put Romney on the defensive from the very beginning, something I doubt any of the Republicans thought would happen. Romney does try to talk about the economy, but he can’t totally ignore the attacks or they would just be even more effective.
Obama, on the other hand, is thus allowed the freedom to talk about the economy on his terms, which he is doing. He is building a case, brick by brick, that the reason the economy isn’t growing faster is due to the Republicans and that not only have they worked to sabotage the recovery, by reinstating their policies, even worse would happen.
I expect a lot of the Dem convention to be focused on Republican obstructionism in an effort, hopefully successful, to not only get Obama reelected, but also to keep the Senate and take back the House.
Taylormattd
You know what is amusing? Saying Obama “slow played” gay rights.
Culture of Truth
That’s almost certainly unconstitutional, and Glenn Greenwald gives Obama a good tweak for signing it at the end of a recent post.
I’m not so sure it’s unconstitutional. Unlike with the Olympic tax issue (which is sure to decide the future of the Republic!) I’m with the concept on both tactics and the merits. I’d sign it and let the courts sort it out.
FlipYrWhig
I think it’s important for us to be disillusioned by all Democrats, and then blame the ones who win for our chronic ennui, because that’s a vital way to get what we want out of institutional politics.
Cassidy
@different-church-lady: Well I do try to be open-minded sometimes ;).
I honestly don’t know liberal and have zero history. The one little thing I quoted from him/her is a pet peeve and I would have made the same comment regardless.
I don’t have a lot of respect for the “both sides do it, let’s vote for a 3rd party candidate on principle and we’ll show them we’re serious about liberal values” people. I’m a pragmatic person. If voting for a somewhat centrist Democrat is my only option vs. a bugnut crazy howlin’ loon of a GOP, then I’m going to vote for a centrist or even Blue Dog Democrat because I’m not a dumbass. Would I prefer a more liberal Democratic Party? Absolutely. I’d also prefer to have a couple million appear in my back account today. I Think as Democrats, we can move our party back to the left and it will take time and diligence and holding our people accountable to liberal values, but I’m not gonna burn the town down just to vote fora liberal candidate. That’s a guaranteed way for the wingnuts to win and that is not an option.
BruinKid
Just my opinion, but I think the Supreme Court got Brandenburg v. Ohio wrong, so these First Amendment cases that have come before them since then have all been based off a badly-decided precedent. There are limits to free speech protected by the First Amendment (funny how certain people don’t seem to acknowledge limits when it comes to the Second Amendment, though).
IMO, when it comes to trying to deliberately incite violence, free speech protection goes out the door. And we all know the Phelps clan WANTS someone to lose it at a funeral and go after them so they can sue the city for everything they can for being the “victims”.
Yes, I know, that’s not how it works right now. But that doesn’t mean what we have right now is a good interpretation. (Citizens United being another obvious black mark on the Court.) Something about the “general welfare” seems out of whack when the purpose is to cause human suffering of grieving parents.
scott
I just think Bernard and mistermix are talking past each other about different things. Bernard used the Olympics thing as a point of departure to argue that we should develop better ways of arguing for necessary taxes to support the programs we like. Mistermix says pick your battles and don’t bother with the Olympics issue. Both are probably right but aren’t really addressing each other. You can think that making a big deal about the Olympics issue doesn’t make electoral sense in the short term while still thinking that long term we need to do a better job not running for the hills every time a Republican screams, “TAXES!” They’re not inconsistent positions, and you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
different-church-lady
@Cassidy: I think Cole put it best three years ago: some people do not understand the difference between holding his feet to the fire and burning him at the stake.
I additionally think a lot of people don’t understand that the tactics one uses to manipulate one’s spouse or significant other don’t work on a national politician.
ericblair
@japa21:
I’m guessing that Romney and whatever passes for his team decided that it’s a physical law of nature that if unemployment is high the incumbent will lose. So they just keep talking about a shitty economy and saying it’s Obama’s fault, take some opportunistic potshots for fun, and start measuring the drapes for the Oval Office. The idea that Rmoney might get some scrutiny himself didn’t seem to occur to him, and certainly the proles are not going to get to go poking though his underwear drawer. So now the flailing.
The skills for a successful politician and a successful businessperson aren’t the same, although I’ve never seen anything that extols Romney’s skills as a businessperson either. Maybe I’m not aware of it and it exists, but this kind of position seems like you could pull off with a suitably large nest egg and a good enough Rolodex, and not need killa skillz in management.
Stillwater
That’s why I had such a disagreement with Bernard’s post—I can’t see him offering a solid alternative to the strategy he so clearly doesn’t like, and fighting every little battle like the Olympics one might sound good in theory but it’s political death.
I think you’re confusing the focus of the criticism. Yggles and Bernard are saying that out of consistency with his other tax policies, Obama shouldn’t have signed off on the medal-tax deal. That’s the part that was bad politics. I agree. Obama punted on this one.
Cassidy
@different-church-lady: I agree. This is the major reason I stopped interacting with OWS here where I’m at. When it first started I actively sought them out; I wanted to be a part of it. But the more I talked, we really didn’t see eye to eye on politics or policy. I saw where they were coming from, but it was so divorced from political reality. I know “liberals” who think that voting for Gary Johnson is a good idea and that if he can get 5% they’ll show everyone they’re serious about civil liberties. I’m thinking “you people are frakkin’ mad!”.
susan
We should be focused like a laser on this:
“The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.”
different-church-lady
@scott: Agreed. And I think it’s that point of departure that’s munging everything up. Especially the way Yglesias chose to present things.
I just can’t understand why people have to make this a binary state argument. What the hell is wrong with saying that Obama is fighting for certain taxes, but not going far enough? Why does it have to be the patent absurdity of saying he’s embraced “anti-taxation fervor?” Is it cynicism in the service of click bait? Or lazy thinking?
The other problem one has when one munges up a bunch of different issues is that people pick and choose which ones they’re going to respond to. So if Bernard hits the nail about winning back ground regarding views on taxation, he distracts his audience by linking that point to a flimsy “departure point.” Then the other front pagers focus on the departure point to the exclusion of the valid points.
transientseeker
@General Stuck:
So let’s assume you’re right about your projection theory. Is a critique of weak leadership any less valid because it assumes that better leaders could be had under different methods of selection?
You are aware that there are different types of democratic governments, ergo an attack on the American form (perhaps because it doesn’t seem to help the “people” very much) isn’t necessarily an attack on all democracies, ever.
gVOR08
I generally agree, but how is it that it’s constitutional to isolate protesters at G20 meetings and political party conventions, but not the Westboro Baptists?
FlipYrWhig
@different-church-lady: I think it’s due to the exaltation of “framing” in the blogosphere. We like to imagine that we’re good with words and ideas, so we get all excited about our candidates mis-speaking and mis-thinking. He or she who misuses The Progressive Frame ruins everything, no backsies, infinity.
FlipYrWhig
@transientseeker: Yes, let’s get to work on changing fundamentally the American form of democratic government. While that happens, I’ll just be waiting over here.
Scott de B.
I don’t think Bernard was saying that Obama should oppose this tax break. Staying silent was also an option.
different-church-lady
@FlipYrWhig: You’d think that people would understand that “make US Olympic athletes pay their fair share” is really shitty framing. “Hey Gabby, nice job in London, but it’s time we used you as a tool to move the Overton Window our way.” Seriously, people can’t see how ridiculously bad the optics would be on that?
Really, when you get right down to it, I think the entire things boils down to, “How dare Obama agree with the enemy on anything, no matter how small?” The rest is just extrapolation of that one small trespass into a federal case. And that kind of extrapolation is bound to become absurd sooner or later.
different-church-lady
@FlipYrWhig: Wee-elll, you know… we’d all love to see the plan.
scott
@susan: Yeah, I saw that too. I don’t think that willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare is something to be proud of as a Democrat, and this goes to the point Bernard and Digby have been trying to make. If you don’t make the case long-term for why we need these programs and need to pay for them, the VSP’s in Washington (including the President) get caught up in their deficit mania that no one else shares and offer up bits of the safety net like they’re just interchangeable line items. This is a narrative that we need to stop or at least change, and I don’t think it’s wrong to argue for changing the terms of the debate.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
No, I’m talking about our particular form of democracy, not all democracy. Though I am certain we have some naysayers around here for having anything but pure statist governance.
It is, when scorched earth, without considering good leadership when it is present in our current president. And Barack Obama has maintained the highest job approval amongst democrat voters since Gallup started its monthly polling in that area. And none so higher than among self described liberal democrats.
There are lots of commenters on this blog that give balanced and thoughtful dissent on this or that thing Obama does that they don’t like, while still giving credit for the things they approve of what he does. So I am talking about a tiny part of the dem base that post comments on blogs, that abjectly oppose Obama as being president, whatever their reasons. And I think a large part of that is ideological per our particular brand of democracy, built to make change slow and measured. The wingnuts took thirty years to instill their economic theories as the current status quo, within our slow change system, and dems and Obama cannot be expected to reverse RW policies overnight, or over 8 years.
But by all means, voice that dissent, even if scorched earth. Just know you are speaking for a very tiny minority of democrats and liberals nationally.
And then there are those on the left who give Obama little leeway due to his race.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
This issue, which in theory would effect approximately 79 people, but actually will likely effect nobody, since no new tax code will be passed, has now warranted 3 Front Page posts, and more than triple number of comments compared to people it would impact.
Yglesias is a master troll.
You fucking dupes.
John
@NobodySpecial:
The Democratic Party was more united in 1984 than it had been in 1980 (or 1972, for that matter), and there wasn’t a third party candidacy to split the anti-Reagan vote. Furthermore, the economic dislocation of 1982-1983 was in the immediate past.
Maybe Mondale was a longshot to win, but he somehow managed to do much worse than Carter had, and nearly as badly as McGovern. There’s a variety of reasons for that, but his pledge to raise taxes didn’t help.
My point wasn’t that this speech caused him to lose, that’s obviously silly. My point was that the speech certainly was not a political winner for him, and that its major effect was to convince politicians that they can never talk about raising taxes.
Mondale did exactly what you say you want Democrats to do. He was absolutely right in that speech. But it didn’t matter, because he lost.
different-church-lady
@scott:
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
However, the exact nature of how those programs are funded is not sacrosanct in my mind. I don’t view every bit of tinkering with those programs as an attack or dismantling. There’s disingenuousnes and fearmongering on the left as well as the right. I mean, would any sane person not try to find ways to make these programs cost less as long as they still served people at the same level?
I mean Paul Ryan tries to fundamentally change every damn thing about Medicare and claim it’s the same thing, and liberals try to convince me that changing some calculation index is going to result in deaths by the thousands and what can I possibly do but call bullshit on both?
MikeJ
@Stillwater:
When it’s 4th & 23 on your own 2 yard line, it is not the time to be morally consistent by going up the middle yet again. Punting is the right course of action. Punting is not defeat. Punting allows you to avoid an own goal (or safety to keep the right sports metaphor) and play on a section of the field that is more advantageous to you.
Should footballers and politicians go for it more often on fourth down? Probably, but that doesn’t mean that you should never punt.
transientseeker
@General Stuck: Fair enough–and full disclosure, I’m def voting for Obama.
But I still don’t think that makes moot the larger question about a system that, per your formulation, is built to make change slow and measured. I think it’s necessary to question the benefits of that, when that means we can’t do anything meaningful about global warming, when the consensus of all the VSPs is that the social safety net (and the poors with it) must be sacrificed for fiscal balance, when all over the country, women’s rights are being rolled back to at least the 50s, ad infinitum.
And let’s be honest here, Obama is complicit to varying degrees (he’s not as bad as a Republican, that’s for sure) with the first two, as evidenced by his snub of Rio and this. On the last, thank goodness, he’s been fighting, and good for him, but he is hampered by that slow change structure.
So does it take thirty years to undo all the rotten stuff that the conservicons have done? Is that the way it’s supposed to work? Seems like you’re willing to throw a lot of people under the bus just to fetishize a particular vision of slow change. Seems like we might not have enough time, what with global warming and all.
That, for me is the question. And no, it’s not served by criticizing Obama for everything he does. I believe that we are much better off now that we have Obama instead of McCain. There’s no question for me on that score. But are we enough better off? I’m not sure.
Jamey
Awesome political judo and great optics: if he HAS to get sucked into this battle, Obama (via House Democrats) should tie a tax break for Olympic medalists to eliminating all federal taxes on unemployment benefits.
If that’s a bridge too far, eliminate the tax on unemployment benefits for MILITARY VETERANS.
Always whirling, whirling, whirling toward freedom!
rea
@Rob in CT: @susan:
“He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.”
You will notice that’s a completely unsourced statement by a reporter about what’s going on inside Obama’s head.
Just Some Fuckhead
@different-church-lady:
Thank you, Both Sides Do It.
Rob in CT
Wow, oops on the Mondale/Dukakis thing. My bad. In my defense, I was 7 years old in 1984.
The basic point (which John appeared to reiterate) is correct, though. Truth-telling on taxes is, at best, a very difficult thing to do and benefit from. Obama has been pushing for an incremental move toward tax sanity (IMO, that’s what the $250K+ increase would be). It may seem like a small thing. It is, actually. But how about we see if we can win on that before demanding that POTUS advocate bringing back the 1970s tax code (or whatever your preferred system may be)?
Same fight, though yes you’re right that Randism is an easier opponent than the more standard Republican Dual Santa Claus. You still gotta pick your battles, no?
dmbeaster
@BruinKid: Except Brandenburg specifically held that inciting imminent violence can be made criminal, and is not protected.
You are confusing the logic of that with some kind of
fighting words” doctrine, which has rightly been rejected. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect even the most obnoxious speech, and the fact that it is intended to provoke cannot be grounds for restraining it.
Realize that what you are doing is confusing speech advocating imminent violence, versus speech that makes others so angry that they get violent. Under that standard, an awful lot of speech can be squelched. Railing against the KKK that results in right wing nutjobs committing violence – should that be made criminal? You are basing restriction on speech on the reaction of people to provoking speech, and the fact that they lose it and get violent cannot be grounds for restraining free speech.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Jamey:
I don’t get why the losers should be getting anything here. If anything he needs to expand it to all winners. Why in the world should we penalize the winners in the economy?
West Texan
@MikeJ: He punted on 4th and 1 from the opponent’s 35. All he had to do was explain that our soldiers overseas pay taxes — are GOOPers saying athletes are more special than soldiers? That’s how I won over my Faux-News watching parents. I’m sick of listening to people whine that we can’t fight for our values.
I’m voting and working for BO this fall, but I am tired of the bowing down to every “conservative” freakout. Fuck ’em.
Cassidy
@West Texan: People care more about Olympians than Soldiers right now. It’s the nature of the 24 hours news cycle. And no, we don’t pay Federal Taxes when deployed.
Just Some Fuckhead
@West Texan:
Why in the hell should the winners of our wars pay taxes? What is this mad libtard obsession with punishing success?
West Texan
@Cassidy: OK — I’ll leave out the overseas part. You still have to pay taxes when you’re here, right?
It’s sad that you’re right about the caring about athletes over soldiers though. Good luck to you wherever you are stationed.
Wag
To the firebaggers I say, politics is the art of the possible.
The die hard Progressive purity party is as unrealistic and dangerous as the unrepentant Ayn Rand Libertarians.
My only hope is that the GOP purity party hobbles
liberal
@West Texan:
Very clever—you’re right, that would have totally crushed them.
liberal
@Wag:
So I suppose the progressive critique of Obama’s idiotic “belt tightening” statement a couple years back was “unrealistic” and “dangerous”, too?
gex
I continue to maintain that, for the “left” in general, this is not an either or proposition. We need pragmatists to get things done. We need the activists to highlight issues.
So while Bernard quoted me on his front page, you’ll also note I didn’t take a side. If I had to, I would say that Obama’s record tells me to let him do it his way.
liberal
@different-church-lady:
Straw man noted.
The critique of attempts to index SS is twofold.
First, as Dean Baker has written extensively, it amounts to substantial cuts in SS for recepients over time, because the cuts are cumulative. Ever heard of compounding effects?
Second, what’s to be gained? SS is flush with cash right now, in the form of the Trust Fund. If we were dealing with good-faithed critiques of SS, we could say, sure, let’s do this or that reindexing, or this or that payroll tax increase, in order to better balance things out in the really long term.
But if you really think the Right is good-faithed and plans on honoring the assets held by the Trust Fund, and doesn’t plan on stealing it by not letting it ever get paid down, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
The only political goal of the Right in tinkering with SS right now is yet more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Not to mention that real fiscal issue isn’t SS, it’s Medicare, and it’s Medicare because medicine and medical insurance are out of control, not because government health care spending alone in isolation is out of control.
MikeJ
@West Texan:
You would have moved it from a piddling giveaway to 79 people who run fast to saying one million armed people are above the law. Congratulations on your purity.
West Texan
@MikeJ: Let me politely ask you to fuck off, Mike. I’m no “purity troll” and moronic arguments like yours do nothing to help all of us. I’ve lived among these idiots for more than 50 years, so I know a little about their mentality. Your and you scared “centrists” bowing and scraping at the feet of the “conservatives” has helped allow them to keep framing all of these arguments. You and your kind are seen as wimpy little babies who they can roll over. You have to punch these bastards in the nose every once in a while to keep their attention. They don’t respect what they consider cowardly action at all. Make strong arguments and you can convert some of them — it’s worked for me.
Jamey
@Just Some Fuckhead: Explain how taxes are a “penalty.” Do you like roads? How about the schools where most of the athletes received much of their specialized training?
I don’t think that olympic medallists should be exempt from taxes on income derived from their sport, period. That means the money beach volleyball players earn on tour, or that NBAers get from their teams. But if there “has” to be a discussion about whether professional athletes (i.e., ones that are rewarded for their performances–and that includes all Olympic medallists) deserve to be exempt from income taxes, then I’d like the counterpoint to be that, so, too, do people who are expected to survive on unemployment benefits, which, TTBOMK, have not been increased since the 1980s.
Maybe I misunderstood your reply, but do you really think that people receiving unemployment benefits (for which they already paid from salary withholding) are “losers”? And, really, doesn’t the US economy–and the nation at large–ALREADY reward “winners” enough?
Cassidy
@West Texan: I’m no longer on Active Duty, but thank you. Yes, servicemembers pay Federal and State taxes, but when deployed, we’re exempt from Federal taxes and most states exempt us as well. I’m a FLorida resident, so never dealt with that.
Nature of the business. It’s no more unfortunate than the news only paying attention to dead girls when they’re white and pretty or anything else. I would say more so, personally.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Bullshit. That is our system as it is, and has nothing to do with my suggesting or be willing to throw anyone under the bus, least of all the poor and middle class. If you are going to ask such fatuous questions into semi assertions, you need to offer up a solution for changing the facts of life under the republic model we have. Or else you are just wanking to be wanking. The rest of us are just going to have to plod along in the real world with the system we have. And Obama is not complicit in anything the GOP wants that screws with the poor and middle class. He is engaging them, rather than climbing on a high horse like a dictator would, but if you think he is going to sell out the safety net and New Deal, then you are not paying attention.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Bullshit. That is our system as it is, and has nothing to do with my suggesting or be willing to throw anyone under the bus, least of all the poor and middle class. If you are going to ask such fatuous questions into semi assertions, you need to offer up a solution for changing the facts of life under the republic model we have. Or else you are just wanking to be wanking. The rest of us are just going to have to plod along in the real world with the system we have. And Obama is not complicit in anything the GOP wants that screws with the poor and middle class. He is engaging them, rather than climbing on a high horse like a dictator would, but if you think he is going to sell out the safety net and New Deal, then you are not paying attention.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Bullshit. That is our system as it is, and has nothing to do with my suggesting or be willing to throw anyone under the bus, least of all the poor and middle class. If you are going to ask such fatuous questions into semi assertions, you need to offer up a solution for changing the facts of life under the republic model we have. Or else you are just wanking to be wanking. The rest of us are just going to have to plod along in the real world with the system we have. And Obama is not complicit in anything the GOP wants that screws with the poor and middle class. He is engaging them, rather than climbing on a high horse like a dictator would, but if you think he is going to sell out the safety net and New Deal, then you are not paying attention.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Bullshit. That is our system as it is, and has nothing to do with my suggesting or be willing to throw anyone under the bus, least of all the poor and middle class. If you are going to ask such fatuous questions into semi assertions, you need to offer up a solution for changing the facts of life under the republic model we have. Or else you are just wanking to be wanking. The rest of us are just going to have to plod along in the real world with the system we have. And Obama is not complicit in anything the GOP wants that screws with the poor and middle class. He is engaging them, rather than climbing on a high horse like a dictator would, but if you think he is going to sell out the safety net and New Deal, then you are not paying attention.
General Stuck
testing
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Bullshit. That is our system as it is, and has nothing to do with my suggesting or be willing to throw anyone under the bus, least of all the poor and middle class. If you are going to ask such fatuous questions into semi assertions, you need to offer up a solution for changing the facts of life under the republic model we have. Or else you are just wanking to be wanking. The rest of us are just going to have to plod along in the real world with the system we have. And Obama is not complicit in anything the GOP wants that screws with the poor and middle class. He is engaging them, rather than climbing on a high horse like a dictator would, but if you think he is going to sell out the safety net and New Deal, then you are not paying attention.
Mnemosyne
@susan:
Sorry, but I’m not sure how seriously I’m supposed to take the claims from a blatant hit job that also claims that Obama is “thin-skinned” when it comes to criticism from the press.
This isn’t the first NYT article that has made a blatantly false claim about Obama that was aimed at getting liberals to turn against him and it won’t be the last.
ETA: If anything, I would interpret that as Obama thinking that he doesn’t get enough credit from Republicans or the press for being willing to compromise while the Republicans are allowed to obstruct absolutely everything, but, as I said, that article is pretty blatantly trying to make Obama look bad to liberals.
CaffinatedOne
Agreed that this is a minor issue, but it could have been defused more easily and not by “lecturing about the importance of taxes…”.
Just note that one of Rubio’s big complaints is that the tax code is too complex, with endless loopholes and arbitrary classifications, and this request is the reason why that happens. Make it an argument about that rather than the tax itself (“People like Rubio writing exemptions and loopholes into the tax code are the reason why it’s such a mess…”).
Mnemosyne
@transientseeker:
It may. A lot of people underestimate just how long the struggle for civil rights, or women’s right to vote, actually took. They look at those few years in the 1960s with MLK and forget that the NAACP was actually founded in 1909. They forget that there were several Civil Rights Acts passed before the one in 1964 that we all think of as the Civil Rights Act.
The other option is violent revolution like in France or Russia. How well does that usually work out for the little people, especially in the short term?
transientseeker
@General Stuck:
And you miss the whole point. What about offering a solution to change the republic model we have, instead of the facts of life under it?
If you want to just wait and let the system correct itself, you are willing to throw people under the bus. If you are exhorting us to just be patient, to “plod along”, putting all of our confidence in the great Obama, you’re part of the problem. Because the fact is that we, the people, do have the power to fix these problems, and exercising that power will fundamentally change the rules of the game.
I can’t judge you–I don’t know what you are doing. But there are things to do other than just wait for all the right people to get on board. Like Occupy. I know people laugh at them for not being politically realistic, but that’s partially the mockers’ fault, since they, who could be presumed to have some political realism, have preempted themselves from the cause to take up the hard work of criticism. If you’re so politically gifted, then use your gifts to actually change the system, instead of telling the rest to wait for the slow wheel of change to turn our way (which sounds a lot like Edmund Burke to me).
Some people look at the system as it is and see an indictment and a call to action. They get out in the streets. They organize their workplaces, their schools, their churches. They aren’t as much concerned about the re-election of a particular candidate as about ensuring that the new system will give more people more power, destroy corporate political influence (which you cannot deny that Obama is swayed by), and make the world a better place to plod along in. Others look at the system as it is, and accept its coordinates as the only real ones, throw up their hands, and resign themselves to making sure that the lesser of two evils gets elected every four years.
I know what I’m doing, and if you want to call real, shoes on pavement activism, “wanking”, then go right ahead. But I’d like to ask you what you’re doing.
transientseeker
@Mnemosyne:
Well, in the French case, I don’t remember reading about the peasants getting guillotined.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Jamey: Are you new here?
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Now you are building strawmen. I did not say we should do nothing, or until the right people are on board. There are many things that can be done, such as OCCUPY, or just take to the streets like I did and many others did, when I was younger during Vietnam. There are all sorts of honest activism avenues to pursue, including getting the best candidates to run that also have a chance of winning where they are running.
Jesus, now you are reaching idiot territory. “Politically gifted”?, and I am not telling you anything. I was just stating a fact, that things got fucked up over a long period of time, and it isn’t likely get unfucked overnight. I got an idea, since you are up on idealistic high horse. Grab a sign for change, since you sound very young, and go outside to protest. That’s what we did in an earlier time, and turn off the computer with the airy proclamations that others aren’t doing it right or fast enough to suit you
And this is grade A firebagger shit. I should have known better. Adjust your halo and DO something rather than wank on a blog. Because it is your turn.
Or, as Mnem said, if you aren’t willing to choose and fight for candidates within the system, which is the only real way to make change within then pick up your musket and revolt in meatspace, and not on the fairy tale internets. And take fuckhead with you, if at all possible.
And you did judge me. Fuck off.
transientseeker
@General Stuck:
Hell son, you don’t know how to read. I already said I’m an activist.
But I think this is about you feeling butthurt about the constraints of your little obot/firebagger binary universe more than anything else.
None so blind as those who will not see.
General Stuck
@transientseeker:
Then go forth and activate and make us proud. You won’t change the world from a blog.
What is “THIS”? I have no illusions that typing nonsense into an internet blog has any real world meaning whatsoever. I do care, but mostly blog out of boredom and to crack a joke now and then, also too chatting up a few cool souls on this board, and then there are the four legged friends I can’t do without. And the only butthurt I have is toward myself, once again swapping pixels with a self important idiot
Mnemosyne
@transientseeker:
You must have stopped reading about the French Revolution before you got to the Reign of Terror:
burnspbesq
Really? You don’t consider that a reasonable restriction on time, place, and manner? What’s you less restrictive alternative?
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne:
Fortunately, for we mortal humans on planet earth, the 21st century has brought with it the new pair-a-dime of neverending Blog war without casualties other than carpal cheeto syndrome. And a plague of vapors, unfortunately.
Fred Fnord
Ah, BJ, the best place to visit whenever I feel the need for a dose of ‘I am a liberal: everyone significantly to my right should be taken very seriously (if only because they are a dangerous foe). Everyone even slightly further to the left of me is insane and should just shut up.’ Funny… it’s the exact same thing the conservatives say.
And so many people wonder why the area of acceptable discourse keeps shifting further and further to the right?