Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

A wingnut with a screw loose.

Moderator: carsonfire

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:50 pm

Congratulations.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:21 pm

Just goes to show, it's all in the eye of the beholder. A moderate to VK, a liberal to Power Line, and to Coakley and Schumer --

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... ate-brown/
Schumer Pulls 'Tea-Bagger' Card on GOP Candidate Brown

New York Sen. Charles Schumer [...] sent out a fundraising e-mail in which he called Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown a "far-right tea-bagger."

[...]

"Chuck has a way of saying things that I don't think he really understands or means, and it's unfortunate," Brown told Fox News Thursday when asked about the e-mail. "I'm not into name-calling. ... so shame on Chuck."


So, what is he? A conservative? A moderate? A liberal?

Being a Massachusetts resident, he's got to be far more liberal than Texas conservatives. Being less liberal than a Dkossian leftist makes him a moderate, if not a raging right winger.

But for the moment, he's at least representative of conservatives, in that he is championing the two main conservative issues of the moment: killing health care horror and cutting taxes. This doesn't prove that he's a conservative, because these conservative positions are popular beyond those who self-identify as conservative. But that he is championing two issues that are broadly popular beyond labels, it doesn't really matter what label you apply to him.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:09 am

carsonfire wrote:Yes, I guess it's this self-denial of yours that puts us at odds on this. You continue to cling to this bizarre belief that running a campaign on reducing spending, then wildly ramping up spending at an unprecedented rate once in office somehow equates to running on an honest platform.


Unprecedented rate? Are you serious? Is there an honest bone left in your body? Obama has passed a 700 billion dollar stimulus. That's it. Bush passed a tax cut worth trillions, and we got NOTHING for it. Bush started two wars that will cost trillions, and we got NOTHING for it. Bush passed a medicare giveaway worth hundreds of billions. None of it, at all, was paid for. There wasn't even a /pretense/ of it being paid for. And conservatives like yourself cheerleaded him all the way. In contrast the health care reform currently being moved through the Congress is largely paid for. Democrats are the only ones in the past ten years who have shown /any/ concern about paying for their initiatives. This is the worst kind of partisan hypocrisy, Carson, you're nothing more than a hack. It's nice that you and your tea party buddies have found religion, but your stunning silence during a true runaway spending spree demolishes any credibility you might have had. It truly is ok if you're a Republican, but god forbid that Democrats ever get the reins of power.

In this country we are left in the dire situation where the Democrats cannot govern and the Republicans cannot be allowed to govern, this I've learned more than anything else in the past year. But Republicans will get their chance again sooner rather than later. Is Obama perfect? No, you point that out every day. Has he adhered to all of his promises? Of course not, I had no expectation that he would. But he's done a damn sight better job of it than the sorry conservatives who have held that office as of late. To suggest that he's laughing in the face of the American people and that he acts completely in contravention of his promises, to the point of doing a 180, is nothing more than partisan hackery. It's the reality you want so it's the reality you create. And it works, too, that's the infuriating part. The big lie always works better than the nuanced response.

So, again, I congratulate you. You've won. Liberals stepped off the gas for one moment and man did you guys take advantage. I am, as always, in awe of the political effectiveness of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. You managed to defeat the Obama Administration in record time, even before Clinton. Truly, it's over before it even started. You managed to convince the country that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass any kind of substantive legislation, and in such an institution the man with 41 votes is king. Who were we to question your obstructionist strategy, when by dealing with a fair and open mind you might have achieved the things you wanted (which you mostly did anyway) in health care reform. If the GOP had actually come to the bargaining table like Obama wanted I strongly suspect that tort reform would be on the table right now. But you never wanted the trappings of health care reform anyway, and man has obstruction paid off. The American people, as I've said before, are not ideologues. They don't give a shit about the back and forth between left and right. Above all else they desire results, and Democrats could not deliver. I look forward to seeing what the Republican minor-majority will be able to accomplish, if you don't achieve a full majority. I'm sure that Obama and the Democrats will be happy to oblige any policy choices that you want to implement. 41 seats in the Senate is all you need to control the Republic, after all.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:44 am

VictorK wrote:Obama has passed a 700 billion dollar stimulus. That's it. Bush passed a tax cut worth trillions


Well, that's a new one! :D

At least for you -- I don't think I've seen you take that particular dishonest route before, of equating the failure to confiscate money from citizens with parceling graft out to your political cronies. I don't even have to ask you where you got it, it's an "oldie but goodie".

Keeping that money in the economy of course benefits the economy -- committing it to mountains of wasteful spending bankrupts us. Through your attempted defense, you reveal why your party is incapable of overseeing a modern economy. Your only thought is to drain it. That's why Obama's unprecedented spending created the fastest rise in unemployment in US history.

Ah, the logic of liberalism -- here's Ed Schulz on why it's OK to cheat in the upcoming Massachusetts election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpT ... r_embedded
I'd cheat to keep these bastards out because -- that's exactly what they are!
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:03 am

carsonfire wrote:At least for you -- I don't think I've seen you take that particular dishonest route before, of equating the failure to confiscate money from citizens with parceling graft out to your political cronies.


That's exactly what I wanted. An admission that spending money (and a tax cut without budget cuts /is/ spending) is ok as long as it conforms with your idea of what's good for the economy.

In other words, the exact same action is ok as long as it's justified by conservative ideology.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby Casual Notice on Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:51 am

The deficit for the first quarter of FY 2010 alone was higher than the deficit for any entire year in American history.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:47 am

But deficits aren't driven only by spending. We also had the worst economy since the great depression in that time period, and that drives down tax revenues. Obama could not spend one penny more than Bush and still have a huge deficit.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:33 pm

VictorK wrote:That's exactly what I wanted. An admission that spending money (and a tax cut without budget cuts /is/ spending) is ok as long as it conforms with your idea of what's good for the economy.

In other words, the exact same action is ok as long as it's justified by conservative ideology.


Your DU-style conflation is silly, VK. You're going to have to explain better how my clear refutation of your position is somehow an admission of your position.

Look, goober -- and I say that affectionately -- spending drives the budget up. What did I say we need to reign in? Spending. So, no, I am not suggesting "a tax cut without budget cuts" -- I am suggesting the exact opposite, tax restraint with budget restraint.

With tax restraint targeted at the productive sector (the "rich" that you HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE), we have found that tax receipts rise. When the productive sector is turning over high profits, they can pay a larger share of taxes, even though it's a smaller percentage of their profits than you would like to seize. If profits fall off, you can demand 100% and get less. You depress tax receipts when you make the taxes too confiscatory on the productive sector. So really, your argument is more apt when we observe your party's policies: you want the luxury of DEPRESSING tax receipts through confiscatory measures designed to punish the "greedy" (the parts of the productive sector that have not cut special deals with the Democrat party) while INCREASING spending and budget bloat. Your ideology gives us just what you HALLUCINATE that you want to avoid with your more simplistic, reality-evading stance that lowering taxes is the same as increasing spending.

Economic/tax policy based on class warfare is counter-productive at best. Tax receipts are currently falling because of your disastrous policy, giving us just the situation you pretend to decry -- which shows (of course) that you are the one judging this on ideological grounds. You refuse to recognize the reality of what's going on, because what's going on is NOT the result your disastrous policy is supposed to have, on paper. But it's the result it always has in practice.

We don't seek tax restraint for the productive sector on ideological grounds, the way you and other liberals do. That is, we aren't picking and choosing winners and losers based on our jealousy, hatred, or biases. We seek tax restraint for the productive sector because we know from experience that the results are beneficial across the board -- tax receipts rise when productivity is up; more people get jobs when productivity is up; more poor people get steady incomes, better health care, etc, when productivity is up. That also means a better funded government, with less people dependent on draining social services, freeing up more resources for infrastructure, etc. Your policies are depressive, and so naturally lead to depression.

[I want to add, by contrast, the liberal Democrat belief is that productivity should just continue rising, just for the hell of it, despite out-of-control spending and tax increases. I have seen Democrats recently complaining bitterly that the nation's businesses aren't continuing to hire, and some even believe they are doing it ON PURPOSE, just to make Obama look bad. You can't have successful policy when you labor under the false belief that your policies occur in a vacuum.]

You sometime sound reasonable, VK, but this isn't one of those times. I think you are frightened and defensive because you're seeing this "once in a lifetime opportunity" to force bad leftist policy on everybody slip away. All I can do is continue trying to help you understand how the seductive ideology you prefer is nothing but simplistic pap. Seriously, the kind of arguments you put forward are exactly the kinds of things I believed when I was a twerpish kid in high school. And I know from experience that too much of it is based on false premises -- you can get smarter in life, and build on those false premises with a lot of intellectual-grade arguments, but the premises remain false.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:22 pm

carsonfire wrote:With tax restraint targeted at the productive sector (the "rich" that you HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE), we have found that tax receipts rise.


This, I think, is your bias. It is the flawed foundation of the rest of your screed, which itself is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts helped, rather than hurt, the economy.

The rich are not the productive sector. The middle class is the engine of the American economy. It's a nice Randian fantasy that these financial wizards who you are so keen on protecting and whose feelings are paramount in your thoughts are the real producers in America, that through their creation of financial vehicles and distribution of capital we get a healthy society. The same with the corporations. Fortunately we've had a chance to test out this theory when it was implimented in the 1980s continuing up to the present. The middle class, which had driven the spectacular growth in America following the post-war, were thrown overboard. It is irrefutable that we made the rich richer, and made it easier for corporations and financiers to conduct business in the way that they chose in order to maximize their own wealth. And we have the worst economy since the post-war to show for it. We gave your ideology every chance, and we're in a worse position now than we were before embarking on the experiment.

You tell me that I have blinders when you live in a fantasy world.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:41 pm

VictorK wrote:
carsonfire wrote:With tax restraint targeted at the productive sector (the "rich" that you HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE), we have found that tax receipts rise.


This, I think, is your bias.


How is it a bias? I don't love or hate the productive sector, I'm basing this on the reality of economic history.

And I'm not confusing the productive sector with the rich, I'm pointing out that you and your ideology does, habitually. Confiscatory estate taxes, for instance, can decimate a business, because you assume that the holdings of that company -- its buildings, equipment, etc -- equates to wealth. Those people are "the rich" by your ideology's definition, even if their actual cash situation is low.

The rich are not the productive sector. The middle class is the engine of the American economy.


This is a political position your ideology has taken in order to pit one group against the other. The "rich" who run businesses are the middle class you pretend to champion. I am technically the "poor", below the middle class, and it has been the middle class that has given me jobs. I worked for one man, once, who was operating a business from his garage. I have also worked for a family-owned bookstore. I also worked for a small family-owned shopping newspaper. These sorts of endeavors are demonstrably hindered by your anti-middle class policies.

Your party used to be vocally *critical* of the middle class, VK. Your policies haven't changed, only the rhetoric. Your party now pretends that the very same policies are suddenly PRO-middle class, but only because you need their votes.

[I should add, the reason that Democrats have had to dramatically change their rhetoric on the middle class is because it used to be a smaller portion of the electorate compared to the poor -- but the middle class has greatly expanded since the Reagan revolution, meaning that the proportion of poor people is smaller than it once was -- something we should all celebrate, except that it means that it's significantly more difficult for Democrats to use class envy to win general elections post-Reagan. So it has become important for Democrats to try dividing between the *relative* haves and have-nots of the middle class]

I feel sorry for you if you think that the relation to production and profit is a fantasy. Again, it helps us better understand why your disastrous ideology has the effect that we're seeing right now.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:49 pm

carsonfire wrote:How is it a bias? I don't love or hate the productive sector


The bias is in what you assign as the productive sector.

I feel sorry for you if you think that the relation to production and profit is a fantasy. Again, it helps us better understand why your disastrous ideology has the effect that we're seeing right now.


There's a relation, but I would judge a business' production not by how much profit a business is making but how much of that profit finds its way back into the economy in a productive way. The best way to do that is for everyone, not just the guy at the top, to have a good wage. You may say that they are fortunate to have a job at all, but this is more Panglossian thinking on your part that the lowest denominator that we observe is actually the best that we can do.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:10 pm

VictorK wrote:
carsonfire wrote:How is it a bias? I don't love or hate the productive sector


The bias is in what you assign as the productive sector.


This is disturbingly fascinating, like trying to take your eyes away from a car wreck. What am I assigning as the "productive sector" that is not the productive sector?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:16 pm

Democrats tried applying this old Python sketch to Bush ("tax cuts for the rich") but it's always been far more apt a description of simplistic, backfiring leftist policy:

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/offlicen.htm
(Usual montage of Dennis Moore riding plus song.)

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
giding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor. and gives to the rich
Stupid bitch.

(Dennis Moore reins to sudden halt and rides over to camera.)

Moore: What did you sing?

Singers: (speaking) We sang... he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

Moore: Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.


http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of ... les-2010-1
CHART OF THE DAY: How The Comeback Didn't Live Up To Its Promises

For mega multinational behemoths like Intel, the economy is really starting to get good again.

But for the little guy, not so much.

Today's chart comes from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and it shows the (dis-)connection between small business expectations and reality. As you can see, the two tracked pretty nicely on the way down.

But last year, small business optimism started to spike in the shape of a "V," perhaps buoyed by the ra-ra optimism of the media and the rebounding stock market. But the reality has been far worse, and the gap between reality and results is gigantic.

[chart]

Don't miss: The 13 charts that show why job creation isn't happening anytime soon -- >


It's small business and the middle class -- a big portion of the productive sector -- that is getting smacked by Democrats' ideological bias and historically failed policies.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:21 pm

More likely Dem destruction ahead:

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/0 ... -39-to-56/
A new SurveyUSA poll sponsored by Firedoglake shows incumbent Democrat Steve Driehaus substantially behind former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot in Ohio’s 1st congressional district. If the election were held today, Chabot would beat Driehaus in a head-to-head match up, 56% to 39%.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby Dave.gillam on Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:18 pm

VictorK wrote:Unprecedented rate? Are you serious? Is there an honest bone left in your body? Obama has passed a 700 billion dollar stimulus.
that even Dems have admitted would result in multi-trillion (at least3, and new predictions rate higher) deficit even before the end of Obama's term.
That's it. Bush passed a tax cut worth trillions, and we got NOTHING for it.
Except slow steady annual growth, despite each and every disaster of the last 9 years, that Obama can only dream of seeing total for his whole 4 year term.
Bush started two wars that will cost trillions, and we got NOTHING for it.
480 billion, and already paid for.
Bush passed a medicare giveaway worth hundreds of billions.
That Obama is trying to top, even more "unpaid for" in spite of most every economic expert not in Obama's pocket (and even a few that are) saying we cant afford.
And conservatives like yourself cheerleaded him all the way.
And even when we admit we may have been mistaken, you say its perfectly fine, as long as its a Democrat doing it.
In contrast the health care reform currently being moved through the Congress is largely paid for.
According to math that even Howard Dean has said is simply unrealistic and impossible. Every expert that looks at it says the numbers that "pay for it" are a pipe dream that will never come true.
Democrats are the only ones in the past ten years who have shown /any/ concern about paying for their initiatives.
By brokering deals with the MEGA-rich while breaking the backs of the small businesses that make up most of the job market, and most of the middle class. The international super-corps that Obama (and Dems as a whole) were supposedly going to gouge are being protected, while Joe Plumber is being vindicated. Unfortunately, he's still going bankrupt and having to close the business. Its all the medium and small businesses that are having to shut down, and laying off employees.
This is the worst kind of partisan hypocrisy,
Thats what we've BEEN saying about Obama since he showed up. And so far, the numbers support our claim, not your delusion.
It's nice that you and your tea party buddies have found religion,
Which is what makes it so hypocritically ironic. We're just repeating what you said about Bush (and are saying even in this thread) But while it was destructive under Bush, its our only hope under Dopey McChangey? Your ideology blinds you to your own hypocrisy.
It truly is ok if you're a Republican, but god forbid that Democrats ever get the reins of power.
You accuse, while saying
It truly is ok if you're a Democrat, but god forbid that Republicans ever get the reins of power.

:roll:

Democrats have "failed to lead" for various excuses, ever since they won in 06. It cant be all conservatives' fault that Dems cant do anything, especially when the Repubs didnt need super-majority to pass things. Dems have super-majority, full control of the house, and the WH, and cant get enough votes to pass a damn thing, even on party line. This isnt repubs' fault. If your party cant successfully work together to accomplish a damn thing, with full control of all 3 sides of the legislative process, then its your fault, and the policies arent as popular as you claim, or fudge polls to "prove".
Is Obama perfect? No, you point that out every day. Has he adhered to all of his promises? Of course not, I had no expectation that he would
.not the song you sang up to January of 2009.
But he's done a damn sight better job of it than the sorry conservatives who have held that office as of late.
Not according to even the Liberal Press, as most everything significant (ie:ethics reform, economy, transparency and accountability, fiscal responsibility) have been rated ranging from failure to outright disastrous lie.
To suggest that he's laughing in the face of the American people and that he acts completely in contravention of his promises, to the point of doing a 180, is
The truth, according to most reporters even.
It's the reality you want so it's the reality you create.
Sounds more like the pipe-dream you keep trying to push. All the "nuance" in the world doesnt turn a shit-sandwich into a cheeseburger.
You managed to convince the country that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass any kind of substantive legislation, and in such an institution the man with 41 votes is king.
No, actually, thats been the Democrat position since 2000, to "justify" why they couldnt stop Bush, effectively oppose Repubs, or do a damn thing beside sit and whine like little cry-babies. Of course, then they proved that even a super-majority with a friendly WH cant rule a country.
If the GOP had actually come to the bargaining table,instead of being locked out of the process like Obama wanted, I strongly suspect that tort reform would be on the table right now.
Fixed
Your "reform" from the start was a power-grab, nothing more: It was full of impossibilities; didnt want to find feasible possibilities, only punishment for "making profits" (apparently the only definition for being "rich" in the Dem dictionary) and needs emotionalism since NONE of the proposals ever offered any means to actually FIX the problems you supposedly wanted to reform. That is why Obamacare is going to fail: it doesnt have a damn thing on the fixes you said were needed, while dumping obscene amounts of money to purely partisan issues, and making most of the publicly decried (for DECADES) problems EVEN WORSE!!! A room full of lobotomized monkeys randomly typing at a computer couldnt assemble a disaster this idiotic. And this is "the best" the Dems can come up with??!!
the American people, as I've said before, are not ideologues. They don't give a shit about the back and forth between left and right. Above all else they desire results, and Democrats could not deliver. For 3 years
one of the rare moments of truth Ive seen from you since Obama started his campaign. It give me hope that you can start thinking for yourself yet.

I look forward to seeing what the Republican minor-majority will be able to accomplish, if you don't achieve a full majority. I'm sure that Obama and the Democrats will be happy to oblige any policy choices that you want to implement. 41 seats in the Senate is all you need to control the Republic, after all.
All they have to do is vote "present" for 2 years, and they're qualified to be president, according to the Dem Party.

I do wonder what will be the main push when repubs retake Congress though. I havent seen any plans for what next, aside from Block Obama's arrogant idiocy.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:50 am

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 2664.story
Several factors have been cited to explain Brown’s surge: He’s affable and telegenic, and has run an aggressive campaign, compared to Coakley’s more reserved effort. But interviews with potential voters also revealed a persistent feeling that Obama and his allies in Congress have misread the public mood and have failed to concentrate on priorities such as the economy.


If Brown wins, I'd like to hear VK come back here and explain that Massachusetts voters elected him because they thought he'd go even farther left. Even his weak claim that Brown is running as a "moderate" doesn't really deal with this inconvenient truth: if his argument that Democrats are failing right now because they failed to go left *enough* had any validity, we'd be seeing a surge of leftist candidates. Where's the public groundswell demanding more candidates like Dennis Kucinich?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... el_opinion
"Around the country they look at Massachusetts and just write us off," longtime local activist Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government told me. "But people around here are really not happy with the extremes in the Democrat Party."

Those extremes are cropping up as issues in this race. One is giving civilian legal rights to terror suspects, which Ms. Coakley supports. Mr. Brown, a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard, hammered her for that even before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day. That incident has tried the patience of an electorate normally known for its civil libertarianism. Rasmussen's most recent survey found that 65% of them want Abdulmutallab tried by the military.

Another issue is taxes. Mr. Brown has scolded Ms. Coakley for supporting a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, for entertaining the idea of passing a "war tax," and for proclaiming in a recent debate that "we need to get taxes up." Ms. Coakley says she meant that tax revenues, not rates, need to rebound. Nonetheless, Mr. Brown's critique resonates with voters who are smarting from a 25% hike in sales tax last year.

Gov. Patrick's approval ratings have also crashed, fertilizing the soil for Mr. Brown's claim in a radio ad that "our government in Washington is making the same mistakes as our government here in Massachusetts."

Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:54 am

I'm curious as to how 'concentrating on the economy' has anything to do with whether or not Obama has gone left or right enough.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:35 am

My comment was more general, although Obama's slipshod leftist ruination of the economy could be included too, if you want.

How do you persist in your claim that Democrats didn't go "left" enough, if the candidates that people are rallying around are the ones trying to pull us back away from that direction? And that's not really a question, because we already know the answer. I'm just highlighting the absurdity.

We have two different reads on recent political history. Yours is that people thought government was going too far right, and that by electing Democrats and Obama, they were embracing your leftist Dkos fringe.

But the leftist Dkos fringe was never presented as the face of the Democrat party. Instead, the last couple of major elections was about spending, a conservative issue. Voters decided the Republican party had lost its way, and accepted Democrat rhetoric that they would be better. That's why I admitted early on that I made a mistake in calling this period a blip, because that implies that there was *ever* support, even for a moment, for unpopular leftist policy. Although we've seen the dramatic turnover from one party to another and back again, it's really part of a linear pattern to the right, the public's demand to reign in spending and check the power of government. It was never a triumph for unpopular leftism that you and other Dkos types fooled yourself into believing.

And that's why I compare recent Democrat behavior to the huckster -- you told some big lies to get votes, then told the public to f*ck off once elected. Claiming that "elections have consequences" is not valid when the elected betray the voters. In this case, the "consequence" of the election is wide voter unrest and a strong desire to put liars back out of office.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:53 am

On the difference between tax cuts and spending, which VK tried to conflate earlier in this thread...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... ow-learner
The first of Obama’s failed ideas is that government spending is the most effective method of stimulating the economy, spurring strong growth, and generating new jobs. The president needs to chat with Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna on this subject. They studied dozens of examples of economic stimulation between 1970 and 2007 in 21 countries, including the United States.

Their findings are unequivocal. “Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based on spending increases,” they wrote in a paper revised and published last October. “We would argue that the current stimulus package in the U.S. is too much tilted in the direction of spending rather than tax cuts.” Indeed it is, and Obama’s paltry tax cuts aren’t the kind of across-the-board reductions in individual and corporate income tax rates that have revived sluggish economies by incentivizing private investment and stirring job creation.

Another finding by the economists bears on a separate aspect of Obama-nomics, deficit reduction. “Spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt and avoiding economic downturns,” they said. “In fact, we uncover several episodes in which spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions.”


The rhetoric that tax cuts and spending are somehow morally equivalent is getting to be a pretty old saw on leftist boards, which is why it surprised me to see VK suddenly engaging in it. But the argument tends to go further than that, when done properly, and you really have to have an audience already receptive to crackpot liberal logic. We haven't seen VK deploy part two, yet, because he didn't get away with part one. The first part is to get you to accept the premise that tax cuts and spending are moral issues at all. Once you accept that they are equivalent morally, it becomes simple to then point out that there is in fact not just moral equivalency, but a moral imbalance: spending is morally righteous, because of what the spending can do; tax cuts are morally wrong, because it "gives" money to the rich. Now reality no longer matters: you are forced to accept higher taxes and higher spending as moral imperatives.

But if you insist that the economy be moral, it must also be realistic: leftist/liberal policy is immoral because it harms the poor despite its good intentions. Ruining businesses through the tax code has never fed one poor family, but certainly has made many families poor.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:27 pm

VictorK wrote:I'm curious as to how 'concentrating on the economy' has anything to do with whether or not Obama has gone left or right enough.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/us/po ... setts.html
As Mr. Obama prepares to come here on Sunday to campaign for the party’s beleaguered Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, Democrats across the country are starting to wonder aloud if they misjudged the electorate over the last year, with profound ramifications for the midterm elections this year and, potentially, for Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Win or lose in Massachusetts, that a contest between a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat could appear so close is evidence of what even Democrats say is animosity directed at the administration and Congress. It has been fanned by Republicans who have portrayed Democrats as overreaching and out of touch with ordinary Americans.

“It comes from the fact that Obama as president has had to deal with all these major crises he inherited: the banks, fiscal stimulus,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democrat who holds the Massachusetts seat on an interim basis pending the special election. “But for many people it was like, ‘Jeez, how much government are we getting here?’ That might have given them pause.”

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

[...]

Still, Mr. Obama’s decision to tear up his weekend schedule to come here reflects concern in the White House that a defeat of Ms. Coakley would be seen as a repudiation of the president’s first year. It would also raise the question of whether Mr. Obama squandered political capital by focusing so much on health care at a time of rising unemployment.

[...]


The Massachusetts campaign has neatly encapsulated the major themes that have come to deplete Mr. Obama’s popularity, themes that have fueled the rise of the Tea Party movement on the right and created an atmosphere where growing numbers of Democrats in conservative-leaning districts and states have decided not to run again.

Mr. Brown is running directly against the health care plan, and Ms. Coakley is standing by it. Should Mr. Brown win, it would undercut assurances Mr. Obama has been offering nervous Democrats that health care will ultimately lift them at the polls.


An aside: Obama lied to everybody else. What reason do Democrats have to believe that he isn't lying to them?

Mr. Brown has portrayed Ms. Coakley as an advocate of big government, big spending and big deficits; Obama advisers and other Democrats have worried that the expanding deficit, now at a level not seen since World War II, was hurting Mr. Obama with independents who lifted him to victory in 2008. Polls suggest that those voters have flocked to Mr. Brown, as they did to Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last year.

“I don’t know what else it would take to wake up the Democratic leadership about the unpopularity of their agenda across the country than losing a Senate race in Massachusetts,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:05 pm

Again, Ed Schultz on why it's OK to cheat in the upcoming Massachusetts election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpT ... r_embedded
I'd cheat to keep these bastards out because -- that's exactly what they are!


Marching orders received:

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/loc ... enate-race
The report by FOX25 said the Service Employees International Union used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:40 am

Since it's Monday, and Coakley's still the candidate, cheating remains the biggest worry at this point. Many are excited by the prospects of a Brown win, but there are too many cautious voices reminding us what Democrats do at the ballot box. How many dead people will suddenly appear out of nowhere, casting their votes for Coakley? How many districts will suddenly bulge with more votes than population?

Democrats may still retain their 60th vote, by any means possible, but are they really better off if they continue ignoring the deep and wide unpopularity of the legislation they are trying to save?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:25 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpT ... r_embedded
I'd cheat to keep these bastards out because -- that's exactly what they are!


Mark Steyn says Ed Schultz is an electokleptomaniac.

However things turn out, the Dems have got a fright. I would be surprised if many candidates in November are quite the same spectacular combination of gaffe-prone stupidity and arrogance as Martha Coakley. But, granted that, I was surprised at how incompetent the Democrat machine was. On Sunday, the President veered between dull and really, really lousy. He did what he did with his Olympics pitch in Copenhagen - he took the extraordinary step of flying in to save the day, and then when he got there thought he could wing it. He, or at any rate his minders, should know by now that his rhetoric is seriously underperforming - "incoherent without his teleprompter and a bore with it". Yet his staff allow him to stagger around as the last believer in his own magic. What sort of functioning pol would be so careless as to say "Everybody can own a truck"? He should talk to any New England dealership about that. As it happens, I bought a new truck* last month and I've never seen the place so empty.

At the start of this campaign, the issues were health care and the economy. After "Ted Kennedy's seat" and "Curt Schilling the Yankees fan" and "only the little people campaign at Fenway", the genius Dems succeeded in making their own assumptions about one-party rule a very potent secondary issue. Very foolishly, Obama both underlined the regal hauteur of the Massachusetts machine - and simultaneously nationalized the election by portraying it as a referendum on the Hopeychange. If Martha now loses, he can't plead it's nothing to do with him.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:24 pm

Democrat Arlen Specter is slated to go down.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... nia_senate
Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak.

[...]

Particularly damaging to Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans was his vote for President Obama's economic stimulus plan, one of only three cast by Republicans for it.


Even though Democrats look down on Specter as an untrustworthy turncoat, there's no way to construe all of this bad news as being somehow affirmation of their disastrous leftward tilt.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Another Dem bites the dust (and another one gone, and...)

Postby Dave.gillam on Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:13 pm

Senator Bayh, who hasnt had a candidate run against him in years, is now facing serious challenge from repubs pointing out he's been just a yes-man to Reid and Obama at voting time, despite the fancy rhetoric quoted in national papers. Indiana prides itself on practicality and pragmatism, just two of the many qualities lacking in Dem "leadership" these last 3 years.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

 
PreviousNext

Return to Winger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron