US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

should have been a shutdown, imo, to perhaps remind bitches of what all the government actually does like restrain tombots

― mookieproof, Friday, April 8, 2011 11:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

As far as the two notices placed in newspapers, many things could have happened, but some feel the grandparents put an ad in order to show that he was a citizen of the U.S. with all of the benefits thereto.

This is really fucking funny.

ezra hates the deal http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2011-is-not-1995/2011/04/06/AFxPaT5C_blog.html

yeah this basically sucks

hurrah, the government will still fund planned parenthood, *three cheers*

id be willing to bet that a shutdown will be avoided

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Friday, April 8, 2011 3:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

bummed no one took me up on this bet

I should have bet on a Democratic shutoff.

Not sure this is bullshit on par with the tax cut extension, but this is bullshit nonetheless. Obama should have come out and said, hey, you don't cut spending when you're emerging from a recession. It didn't work in 1937, it's not working in the UK, it shouldn't happen here. Then he could use it as a campaign promise: "if reelected, I promise to cut $40 billion of bullshit." He could have come off the grown up and the campaigner, offering it as a pantomime challenge: "will the Republicans step up and agree with me to tackle these future cuts in 2012?" Because this shit deal (natch) just sets the stage for further shit deals in the waning months of his first term, which is a weak position.

But the republicans know this. When the economy tips back again, inevitably, when he's in his second term, he'll take the blame, and when he tries to flip that back on the republicans, they'll say the economy sucks because he didn't go far enough when he had the chance. And then the stage will be set for a republican to easily take back the white house, let alone the house and senate, and do some real damage. Because as much as we joke about the the weak republican presidential prospects for 2012, the dem bench ain't exactly that deep, either.

a) the economy is going to continue to get better, not worse
b) Obama is going to sail to reelection

There is going to be some sort of 3-5%-vote attracting progressive in the general election next year who will threaten Bam's reelection, and let cowardly liberals revive their Nader hate from 2000.

i wouldnt bet on it!

Why would a liberal who felt--rightly or wrongly (there are arguments to be made either way)--that Nader put Bush into the White House, and therefore was a little angry at him, be cowardly?

this will be an enlightening and civil conversation and we will all emerge better friends because of it

a) the economy is going to continue to get better, not worse
b) Obama is going to sail to reelection

There is no doubt that Obama will get reelected, or at least little doubt. What I see, though, is him firmly setting the stage for a republican win in 2016, plus further republican gains in the house and senate in between.

As for your first point, I'd like to know what information you have that makes you so certain that just a couple years after a near-depression, a recession, and a jobless non-recovery (that is, things are stable but not much better) that has in the most half-assed, compromised way addressed the issues that lead to the recession/near-depression, the economy will continue to get "better." Between chaos in the middle east, nuclear meltdowns in Asia, banditos south of the border, there are all sorts of things that could go wrong, and domestically I'm still not seeing much going right - the country going right, in the political sense, being part of the problem, or at least more certainly not a historically productive solution.

clemenza, bullying people into guilt for not casting your vote for the candidate who's "entitled" to it is cowardly.

Great, now we/Josh know what's happening 5 years from now.

Plastics.

Two voters, both inclined to vote for the Nader-like candidate. One says, "I'm voting for him, I don't care how it plays out." The other does worry about how it will play out, and casts a conflicted vote for Gore (or Obama). I think both of those choices are valid; I don't see how the one is noble and the other cowardly. And if the second voter gets a little upset at the Nader candidate because the results are exactly what both he and the Nader candidate knew might happen, I don't think getting a little angry is unwarranted either (provided some of his anger is directed at the Democratic candidate for running a lousy campaign).

k3vin, I know you fly high above such mundane reasoning.

I kinda wish the Florida Nader voters had felt bullied into voting for Gore. Try to deny it, but it would have given us Gore instead of Bush.

Re the current economy I wish it was all as simple as Shakey says.

Obama and his corporate dems staff think he looked like a talented Ceo handling this and despite evidence otherwise, they so still think he can attract those "I don't read the paper or even the internet and tv news headlines independents" . But except for Reid's last-minute pleas re womens health issues, no one was touting Democratic values on anything--economic issues,social...So when the next budget fight and the debt ceiling fight happens it will again be up to Reid.

As predicted they threw DC residents under the bus--1. They're forcing some of D.C.'s limited taxpayer money to go to vouchers for christian schools; and 2. They're barring DC from spending its own money for abortion-related services for poor women.

I won't "try" to deny it; that you frame it that way, and not by the overwhelming evidence that Gore won Florida... I just surrender.

Some people vote swapped in order to get Gore votes in key states- I think there was a funding issue for Nader, too?

I don't think progressives as a whole have jumped ship yet, obama's image is pretty tarnished but the right is much scarier than it was in the nader years. maybe if romney gets the nom the prog left will feel a little bit more comfortable.

That's why the Republican nomination will be so fascinating, and something of a mirror image of the Democrats in '72: can they nominate one of those boring Bush I types their Tea Pary wing despises, someone who could actually beat Obama, or will the revolt from within be too great? I think that'll depend in large part where Obama and the economy stands in the early months of 2012.

x-post Yes there were hanging chad votes,etc. in Florida but if Nader voters in Florida had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have to have worried about trying to count all the votes that the Supreme Court prevented from being counted.

I am worried about the gang of 6 in the Senate. These moderate Dems and Conservative Republicans are seen by the chattering elites as pushing the sensible alternative to Ryan--very slight tax increases with big cuts and changes to Social Security. But even the Post's AJ Dionne (whose friendly talk with Brooks on NPR irritates Soto) sees the Gang of 6 as giving in to Republicans and not a plan that reflects the ideal Democrat position that the poor and elderly should not have to take the fall because of Wall Street, Bush rich people tax cuts, 2 plus wars, Bush prescription drug company plan, etc.

whose friendly talk with Brooks on NPR irritates Soto)

Last week they apparently heard me and swapped Brooks for Ramesh Ponnoru!

weigel http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/09/the-shutdown-wrap-boehner-wins-austerity-wins-and-the-social-conservatives-go-home-with-a-participant-trophy.aspx

Democrats spent months predicting that Boehner would have trouble controlling his new Tea Party members. They spent this week saying he had to put the Tea Party “horse back in the barn,” as Dick Durbin said. Well, there’s a deal – the implication is that he put the horse back in the barn. If the Republicans would have been blamed for a shutdown, it follows that they get credit for a shutdown being avoided.

Rep. Mike Pence introduced the rider to ban Title X funds from going to Planned Parenthood. It would have saved around $363 million, but it was anathema to Democrats. So it served two purposes -- a bargaining chit for the coming debate, and a way to shift the Overton Window on the abortion debate.

Tonight, Democrats got the rider stripped, handing a massive victory to the pro-choice movement. So – spitballing before we get exact numbers – Pence’s $363 million was worth an extra $637 million. That’s a pretty good deal for economic conservatives.

I don't think progressives as a whole have jumped ship yet, obama's image is pretty tarnished but the right is much scarier than it was in the nader years. maybe if romney gets the nom the prog left will feel a little bit more comfortable.

― iatee, Saturday, 9 April 2011 15:21 (1 hour ago)

Romney is going to have to move very far to the right to get the nomination (he already has).

Obama Job Approval (Fox News)
Approve 49.0%
Disapprove 47.0%

Republican Party Job Approval (Fox News)
Approve 35.0%
Disapprove 58.0%

Americans just want a divided government that doesn't actually do anything, I guess.

I agree, romney's gonna have to make himself look crazy, but he's still got a resume that screams "I'm probably not so crazy as far as contemporary republicans go"

I think, if anything, the gop probably has more to worry about w/ 3rd party candidates this time around.

corporate america wants a divided government that doesn't do anything. what 'americans' "want" is increasingly irrelevant

xp

i dont know that im willing to bet on it, but i think romney will probably take the nom. my guess is that obama will beat him if the economy is good enough? i dunno, a lot can (and will) change in the next 18 months.

is it wrong that i think "the economy will eventually get better in the long run regardless so keeping planned parenthood funded for symbolic purposes and keeping the powers of the EPA for both symbolic and real world purposes is worth it?"

also i think all the talk about who will be seen as having 'won' the showdown is irrelevant & won't be a factor come 2012

looking forward to the gamefaqs walkthrough of this election

is it wrong that i think "the economy will eventually get better in the long run regardless

yup, it is wrong to think this

I will be interested in seeing what compromises Obama will agree to in the next 18 months re the budget, debt ceiling, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and whether there will be much if any growth in the economy

My $0.02.

Political power often rests on the perception of that power, much like a poker hand. Obama's emphasis on compromise and getting something done speaks directly to his indifference to accruing personal political power. As a personality trait, this is a lot less pathological than being power-hungry, but what's missing seems to be an agenda he is passionate about implementing, requiring him to seek the power to put it into effect. Instead he just keeps feeding the Republican beast in the hope that this is a proper product of an idealized, orderly political process.

I can get behind that analysis.

btw I'm partly wrong: lots of Corner-ites are pissed off at Boehner.

I expect their presumption is that, if he got that much, he could have got more.

It's a beautiful scorcher of a day in Florida, so if you want to take five minutes and read this and its comments.

is it wrong that i think "the economy will eventually get better in the long run regardless

yup, it is wrong to think this

also, i'm less concerned with how this affects the 2012 election and more of how it will affect the debt ceiling and FY12 budget battles.

wow, some of those nro comment section stooges have such twisted priorities it's hard to believe we live in the same country

xp

pretty much agree with ezra klein this time that economic fundamentals (not the markets obv) will drive obama's political future. i can't imagine austerity improving on this shit, so i think dems will wish the worked a lot harder on painting austerity as bad, and this deal as very bad for average americans.

the fact that teabaggers are unhappy isnt evidence of any success here in terms of anything afaict. i think 12 will be the mirror of 08, this time favoring gop- as long as the gop doesnt nominate somebody below the gwb-line of inanity, they can take it.

most of the gop falls under the gwb-line at this point

What happened to all the EPA cuts? Did Dems compromise on that stuff?

I haven't been following politics but if the tea party becomes a viable 3rd party then I don't see why we can't have Paul/Ventura in a viable 4th party. I would love that :3

the conversation on the topic may be stale now, but i was def. someone who Morbz would say was "bullying Nader voters." at the time, i didn't think that the country or the Democratic Party were so far gone that a Nader vote was necessary -- plus i really believed that Gore would've been a very good President. i still hold those opinions.

this time around, though, i'm not so inclined to badger anyone voting third-party against Obama b/c the rot within the country and the Democratic Party is too pronounced to be ignored any longer. in fact, i could see myself voting third party myself.

What happened to all the EPA cuts? Did Dems compromise on that stuff?

they dropped the EPA rider. PHEW. for now. until the next budget.

lorax, I have incontestable evidence that ron paul and jesse ventura did 9/11