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

helms, robertson and keyes were 'fringe' ihttp://blog.devstone.com/images/emote_ellipsis.gifay that bachmann and palin aren't

huh weird

helms, robertson and keyes were 'fringe' ihttp://blog.devstone.com/images/emote_ellipsis.gifay that bachmann and palin aren't

naw

is that my computer ohttp://blog.devstone.com/images/emote_ellipsis.gifew ilx joke?

lol

jon stewart isn't progressive? i honestly don't watch enough of him to know

well, he is progressive enough to make jokes about Obama's Bushlikeness that his audience sits through in nervous silence, but not progressive enough to let 24 hours pass without apologizing for calling Harry Truman a war criminal.

in a way

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090913093528AArIEyJ

not progressive enough to let 24 hours pass without apologizing for calling Harry Truman a war criminal.

wait what?

Iatee and Shakey,

My concern was that we don't have a President or Congressional leader espousing liberal economic views & policy positions and therefore economic policy is being defined from right-center to right. And that policy approach is occurring whether or not there are radical folks on the right or left getting attention from Jay Leno.

We haven't had one since Nixon imposed price controls and created the EPA.

yeah that's true, curmodgeon. well, we had Pelosi for awhile there at least.

xp

Oh, Jon Stewart apologized for calling Truman a war criminal for bombing Hiroshima.

Stewart is generally pretty liberal when I've watched him but his viewership in numbers isn't that big, is it?

Alfred:

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=2093

x-post
Soto, did Congress push Nixon to create the EPA? How do people explain some of the domestic actions he took that are now considered liberal and how do they match up with his other actions from Watergate to anti-semitic talk to foreign policy? Was he a secret Rockefeller Republican on some things? Did Republicans once support having an EPA?

Nixon was not pushed by congress on the EPA, and iirc yes he did have some Republican support. Nixon was kind of all over the place domestically.

Nixon's overriding need was to be loved, and he would pursue any policy to achieve this, he has no principles whatsoever

some Repubs supported having an EPA. Teddy Roosevelt would've, eventually. Hell, there used to be liberal Republicans.

I'm sure there are anti-Semitic environmentalists. Takes all kinds.

LOL, Lincoln was a Republican, too, doncha know.

And he freed the slaves!

Republicans were the more liberal party a hundred years ago; there's no comparison. The Dems on the other hand were the wingnut racists. Now they're just nuts.

I basically agree curm, but that being where we are now I don't think it is a bad thing that GOP gets bad PR for its craziness. I don't think that situation is incompatible with a push for louder liberal voices.

Xps

Some more cold water.

LOL, Lincoln was a Republican, too, doncha know.

so was Jacob Javits, a liberal senator from NY, 1957-81.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican

quoting from the independent institute, good god

So im just waiting to hear Obama's speech. Anyone know when it will start?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

oh here we go

Shakey or somebody asked me a couple of weeks ago where I learned that the White House never wanted the public option. I found the source. I know the issue's dead, but it's worth a read.

speech entirely setting up tax hikes so far...

n i s

Yeah i like what he's saying. Only wish he'd follow through with this stuff.

He should gesticulating so much. He's a persuasive speaker, so he shouldn't use his damn hands so much.

like 1995 all over agin

Sully's last response:

2 pm. Back to the bipartisan 1990s!

we could reduce military spending a lot if we stopped having wars, Mr. President...

wrt Lincoln & the Republican party, my understanding was that Republican was the liberal party and the party of choice for African-Americans until about the 1960s, when JFK started supporting civil rights and MLK...when that happened, not only did many African Americans start voting Democrat, but white conservative Southerners, who were for the most part Democrats, suddenly jumped ship.

so was Jacob Javits, a liberal senator from NY, 1957-81.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican

― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:41 PM (39 minutes ago)

^^i'd like to thank him for everything

Even if Obama makes the case for raising taxes on the rich now, Republicans know he folded on getting rid of the Bush cuts last December. How are we going to get any follow-through on this.

Meanwhile former Bush administration official Marc Thiessen (best known for supporting torture) is moaning in the Post that the budget deal involved too much trick cuts and cuts of one-off programs and he proposes the following in the Washington Post:

It turns out the actual cuts to discretionary spending may only amount to $14.7 billion.

Bottom line: Conservatives feel swindled, and some House Republicans are even saying they will not support the deal when it comes to a vote tomorrow.

Their anger is understandable. But rather than tank this deal, they should pocket the smaller-than-expected savings and move on to the next fight — the battle over raising the debt limit — where the grounds for victory are more hospitable. They should do so chastened by this experience, and determined to exact even larger concessions.

As I pointed out my column Monday, unlike the fight over the government shutdown, the GOP holds all the cards in the debt limit fight. Obama’s weapon in last week’s standoff was his veto — his willingness to kill the temporary spending bill House Republicans passed and allow the government to close. In the debt-limit fight, this weapon is not available to him. Using the veto would cause the government to default, something the president cannot — and will not — allow. All House Republicans have to do, if negotiations bog down, is start passing a series of small debt-limit increases to keep the government solvent — and attach large spending cuts to each one. Obama will have no choice but to sign them.

every sentence of that last paragraph is wrong

yeah that wasn't my understanding of the situation at all

It seems backwards. But that's the upside-down world Thiessen and others live in.

According to the Washington Post Obama's gonna punt again and have a 16 member panel of congressmen working with Biden on finalizing a plan. I wonder what the odds of Bernie Sanders or others to the left of getting on that are.

As great as Shakey becoming my secretary of defense.

we could reduce military spending a lot if we stopped having wars, Mr. President...

We could, but Jimmy Carter massively increased DOD spending with no wars going on.

“We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.”
— President Obama NY Times

However if the 16 member panel I am calling for proposes slightly less than $1 trillion worth, I will sign that

yup, let's see how big Barry talks when his campaign people start noticing a dropoff in campaign funds from his core constituency of "liberal" hedge funders and BigLaw partners.

They know they'll be ok. He's offering his usual 'bipartisan' approach that calls for more spending cuts than tax increases

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/obama-deficit-plan-a-mixed-bag-for-democrats-and-a-sharp-contrast-with-gop.php?ref=fpa

And Republicans will fight to make the Bush tax cuts permanent

the GOP holds all the cards in the debt limit fight

Letting the US gov't go into effect, ending your US political career and causing your fortune to be worthless. Sure they are going to do that. Riiiiiight.