-
Transmigrant posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 2:57:37 pm» quote
-
After making fun of Obama for using a teleprompter:
A Humerous Palin Moment (1681 views)
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 2:59:02 pm» quote
-
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 4:08:49 pm» quote
-
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 4:40:03 pm» quote
- sanguine phlegmatic posting.
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:06:18 pm» quote
-
I listened to most of the speech. it wasn't a dig about the teleprompter per se, it was a warning about falling sway to charismatic leaders. she did have a couple of tough moments with her notecards, though, where I bet she wished she had a teleprompter (and one moment where she clearly lost her way was a pretty key moment in the speech, and she said "alaska" instead of "america").
anyway, the context for the teleprompter remark (and I have to agree with the general take, though I'm still not sold on palin. it's just that the competition is particularly unimpressive):
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/MarkTapscott/Saran-Palin-is-miles-ahead-of-every-other-polician-in-America-83751452.html [www.washingtonexaminer.com] »
She encouraged her Nashville audience “against allowing this movement to be defined by any one leader or any one politician. The tea party movement is not a top-down operation. It’s a ground-up call to action … it’s bigger than any king or queen of the tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.”
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:08:49 pm» quote
- the guy who introduced her (andrew breitbart) highlighted one of the many reasons I would enjoy seeing her defeat obama in the presidential election, if it came down to the two of them. whatever her other merits, what she does to the people who hate her is just an awesome thing to behold.
-
goldsoundz posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:14:27 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:08:49 pm
whatever her other merits, what she does to the people who hate her is just an awesome thing to behold.
Clearly, the same has already been proven true of Obama.
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:23:43 pm» quote
- clever, but that's a fatuous comparison. the lunatic opposition to obama is on the fringes (birthers, manchurian candidate types), and at this point the opposition to him in the center and the mainstream right is substantive. as for palin, the gurgling hatred and paranoia is far from a fringe phenomenon.
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:25:31 pm» quote
- her criticism of obama in that speech was the harshest I've seen articulated by a major political figure. she also "came out" as a total neocon as far as foreign policy is concerned. don't know how that will play across the tea party types, but I enjoyed it.
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:32:19 pm» quote
- and those who hate her should be very afraid. she seems to have built a very professional organization behind her. one striking example was the themes she touched in her speech. there was a big article a couple of days ago where the pollsters tried to distill the issues and positions that united the diverse groups of tea partiers. she hit on every single issue that unites tea partiers according to that article (basically, issues around the fiscally conservative critique of this administration, and various matters related to national security). she avoided the divisive and contentious stuff (social/family values, etc.).
-
augmented skankbot posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:56:24 pm» quote
- So I guess we know who you're voting for in '12
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 8:31:00 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:06:18 pm
(...) it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.”
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 10:09:57 pm» quote
- when election time comes around, you're given a choice basically between two people. if she were one, and obama were the other, I would choose her. do you mean that you "can't believe" that as in "don't want to" because it's too horrible to contemplate, or that you "can't believe" that as in can't conceive of it? either way, as far as I'm concerned you can go fuck yourself, but I'm curious to know the answer.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 10:17:34 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 10:09:57 pm
either way, as far as I'm concerned you can go fuck yourself (...)
so eloquently put.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 10:48:31 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:23:43 pm
clever, but that's a fatuous comparison. the lunatic opposition to obama is on the fringes (birthers, manchurian candidate types), and at this point the opposition to him in the center and the mainstream right is substantive. as for palin, the gurgling hatred and paranoia is far from a fringe phenomenon.
wait, what is the point you're making with this statement?
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 11:05:04 pm» quote
- i think it is important not to dismiss sara palin ,as extreme as i find it to be to not do so. it's important to intelligently and categorically dismiss her for valid and well founded reasons,not her brain damaged droll. in some ways she is playing the right cards, the government ,and politics in general ARE completely fucked up and most people on both sides do feel pretty powerless to do anything about it,to me it is like watching 'a handmaids tale'.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 9:39:58 am» quote
-
why do they have dicks.
anyway, good roundup of the "tea party convention" and palin's speech from glenn reynolds (who wrote the book on this kind of stuff, called an army of davids).
"I attended this past weekend’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, and I came away feeling that I had seen something important. The Tea Party movement is part of something bigger: America’s Third Great Awakening...
Most of the attention focused on this weekend’s convention seemed to involve the keynote speaker, Sarah Palin. But though Palin wowed the crowd with red-meat attacks on overspending, weak national defense, and broken promises, the key phrase in her speech was this one: “All power is inherent in the people.”
And the biggest action item that she presented the crowd with wasn’t to support Sarah Palin, as most politicians would have asked, but to challenge incumbents in primary races. Primary battles aren’t “civil war,” she said. They’re the kind of competition that produces strength in the end...
The Tea Party movement is bottom up, not top down. Lots of Tea Party people think well of Sarah Palin, but I doubt that many, even among the attendees at this weekend’s convention, would do much of anything just on her say-so. People I’ve talked to, both there and at other events, aren’t looking for a charismatic leader.
That’s the Barack Obama model, now somewhat tattered. Instead, they’ve had enough and they’re taking the reins themselves. Over and over again, I heard people at this convention tell me that
they had never been involved in politics before the Tea Party movement. And, having tried it, they’re finding that politics can be fun, and they’re encountering the joys of learning that they’re not alone.
Accustomed to major-media treatment that strongly implied that anyone favoring small government must be some kind of fringe wacko, they’re discovering that lots of people feel the way they do, and that they can wield a lot of power if they try. I suspect the power-wielding part is just starting..."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Glenn-Reynolds-Tea-Party-Nashville-was-Americas-Third-Great-Awakening--83762647.html [www.washingtonexaminer.com] »
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:17:21 am» quote
- well too bad their numbers are so small, you see it would take not only the tea baggers,but an equivalent movement among 'liberals' to truly have enough strength to redefine government. the new trend of divisive politics has seen to it that the two shall never agree,even when it would serve both their needs to do so. as long as the polemic is this extreme no one is going to be changing anything.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:18:42 am» quote
-
meanwhile, on the left, you have the smart set demonstrating a terrible fear of the people and riffing on the notion that america is "ungovernable."
Is Democracy Killing Democracy?
The founding fathers saw this coming, but the walls they erected to contain the mob may no longer hold.
Read more: Kurt Andersen on Why American Democracy Has Gotten Too Democratic -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/politics/63662/#ixzz0exSM7kSr [nymag.com] »
Down With the People
Blame the childish, ignorant American public—not politicians—for our political and economic crisis.
By Jacob Weisberg
http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/ [www.slate.com] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:32:50 am» quote
-
i dunno man I don't think palin is doing anything besides exploiting her political celebrity in order to get paid. she's just spouting the rhetoric that will continue to get her book deals
not to say that she's not influential. but she has no real interest in actually governing anything.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:40:17 am» quote
-
oh, so not only can you read her hand, you can read her mind too. see the glenn reynolds post above. she may or may not have interesting in "governing anything" herself, but she's using whatever power she's gained for this:
"And the biggest action item that she presented the crowd with wasn’t to support Sarah Palin, as most politicians would have asked, but to challenge incumbents in primary races. Primary battles aren’t “civil war,” she said. They’re the kind of competition that produces strength in the end..."
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:41:51 am» quote
- i'm just saying that is my perception based on what i know of her actions. and what you just wrote is sort of in line with that
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:45:15 am» quote
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:17:21 am
well too bad their numbers are so small, you see it would take not only the tea baggers,but an equivalent movement among 'liberals' to truly have enough strength to redefine government. the new trend of divisive politics has seen to it that the two shall never agree,even when it would serve both their needs to do so. as long as the polemic is this extreme no one is going to be changing anything.
your use of "tea baggers" is counterproductive to having any sort of discussion. gigantic LOL at "the new trend" of divisive politics. and you're dead wrong about the numbers, as a movement doesn't need self-identified "liberals" in order to succeed, as they appear to be between 15-25% of the population at most in the last decade of polls. it's probably your membership in that group that makes you think the polemic of the "tea baggers" is so extreme.
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:02:53 am» quote
- it's a shame you are so emotional about these things, i think it clouds your intelligence.i am not a self identified 'liberal' as much as that may pad out your point, but thanks for telling me what i believe anyway.also 'new trend' is contextual to the last two hundred years.i guess my point was that it would take a serious amount of people who all agreed with one another on a fundamental level to change any of this.more people than are in your beloved tea people or in your despised liberal groups.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:03:31 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:46:01 am
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:41:51 am
i'm just saying that I really don't like her, and will interpret anything she does based on my really not liking her. at all.
as if you are some kind of unbiased observer of obama? no, i don't like her, and i don't like what she has to say about government. so I disagree with her.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:08:03 am» quote
- you should be wary of your prejudicial feelings towards her interfering with your analysis of her actions. as should I wrt obama, but I think I do a pretty good job of keeping that in check, since it remains true to this day that I have no personal animosity towards the guy. I just think he's an awful president, but of all presidents he's the one I'd most want to have hung out with.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:10:27 am» quote
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:02:53 am
it's a shame you are so emotional about these things, i think it clouds your intelligence.i am not a self identified 'liberal' as much as that may pad out your point, but thanks for telling me what i believe anyway.also 'new trend' is contextual to the last two hundred years.i guess my point was that it would take a serious amount of people who all agreed with one another on a fundamental level to change any of this.more people than are in your beloved tea people or in your despised liberal groups.
uh, who's getting emotional here? I pointed out that you're wrong on the numbers when you claim that any movement needs "liberals" if it hopes to change matters. yet you seem to have been distracted by the giant LOL I directed at your truly laughable assertion that divisive politics are a new trend in any temporal context.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:16:11 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:46:01 am
i'm just saying that I really like her, and will interpret anything she does based on my really liking her.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:16:33 am» quote
-
Also:
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:03:31 am
as if you are some kind of unbiased observer of obama?
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:18:24 am» quote
-
this cheat note thing is so stupid, who fucking cares! even in the context of the teleprompter remark. focusing on crap like this makes you look like a whiny wiener.
although i have to admit i find it fascinating that she has things on her hand that are crossed out. that kinda rules. its cracking me up imagining someone checking their secret hand notes and then crossing them off
-
jordivision posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:23:03 am» quote
- i would argue that divisive politics to the point of complete gridlock are a new phenomenon that can be vouched for historically.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:25:19 am» quote
- well, let me know when you get around to doing that. you should start with defining "divisive," since today's politicians are timid and tame and very polite in the way that they address one another, and our press is refined in the way that it reports on them in a historical context.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:27:35 am» quote
-
I would say it's a "trend" that has begun very recently, like in the last year or two, since somehow bush managed to get his budgets approved and other aspects of his agenda funded with a thoroughly democratic congress. meanwhile, the dems, with a supermajority in congress, have stumbled and liberals are now decrying this whole gridlock thing.
if there is gridlock, it is inside the democratic party. and if the country seems therefore ungovernable, I agree in the sense that it is apparently ungovernable--by the democrats.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 12:10:47 pm» quote
- protip to daskol: hiding images under the spoilers function doesn't really do much when people have images turned off.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 4:10:30 pm» quote
-
here's arthur kling:
"My point here is not to champion Republicans. It is not to champion democracy. My point is that the ones throwing the temper tantrum right now are the Progressives. They think that the 2008 election gave them the right to operate like China's autocracy, and they are lashing out hysterically at those they perceive as preventing them from doing so On the one hand, the villains are a small minority in the Senate. Or maybe the villains are the incoherent majority of the people.
The important point is that Progressives are never wrong. Top-down reform is the only way to fix the health care system. Anthropogenic global warming is scientifically proven, and its solution requires strenuous exercise of political control over individual behavior. Deficit spending is necessary and sufficient to create jobs. Technocrats can make banks too regulated to fail. Markets without technocratic control are like adolescents without adult supervision. Individual happiness can be improved by political authorities using scientific knowledge. Concentrated political power is the wave of the future, and it is good.
I am not a populist. I fear the mob. But how can I fear the Progressives any less?"
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/02/progressives_vs.html [econlog.econlib.org] »
-
jordivision posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 4:16:08 pm» quote
- hahaha. who is being hysterical?
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 4:26:45 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 10:18:42 am
meanwhile, on the left, you have the smart set demonstrating a terrible fear of the people and riffing on the notion that america is "ungovernable."
Is Democracy Killing Democracy?
The founding fathers saw this coming, but the walls they erected to contain the mob may no longer hold.
Read more: Kurt Andersen on Why American Democracy Has Gotten Too Democratic -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/politics/63662/#ixzz0exSM7kSr [nymag.com] »
Down With the People
Blame the childish, ignorant American public—not politicians—for our political and economic crisis.
By Jacob Weisberg
http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/ [www.slate.com] »
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 4:55:09 pm» quote
-
and here's a piece from jay cost at realclearpolitics. the excerpt's a bit long, so it's in spoiler tags. but really, read the whole thing.
show spoiler
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html [www.realclearpolitics.com] »
-
goldsoundz posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 5:26:05 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:23:43 pm
clever, but that's a fatuous comparison. the lunatic opposition to obama is on the fringes (birthers, manchurian candidate types), and at this point the opposition to him in the center and the mainstream right is substantive. as for palin, the gurgling hatred and paranoia is far from a fringe phenomenon.
"Hating Palin is fringe, hating Obama is mainstream." C'mon dude, you're better than that.
-
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 5:40:19 pm» quote
-
excuse me? I'm saying that opposition to obama is pretty mainstream at this point, and that the hater types are on the fringes.
meanwhile, my sense is that the consensus of "right-thinking people" around here HATE palin, and that includes basically apolitical people like my wife and politically interested liberals like my friends.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:09:38 pm» quote
- daskol's clearly lost his/her trolling edge.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:10:22 pm» quote
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:18:24 am
this cheat note thing is so stupid, who fucking cares! even in the context of the teleprompter remark. focusing on crap like this makes you look like a whiny wiener.
did you just call daskol a whiny wiener?
-
TurkeyTetOffensive posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:14:05 pm» quote
-
How can you read things like this:
daskol posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 11:21:45 am
I think her handling of the issue people are making about her hand notes (writing "Hi MOM" on her hands) is pretty deft and turns "story" such as it is one to her favor.
And then ask the above question? Honestly.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:22:58 pm» quote
-
because this was a humorous thread (as stated in the title) taken to a political debate styled level by daskol?
i'm just surprised, though, that no one pointed out my misspelling in the thread title itself
-
Butch_Huskey posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:25:09 pm» quote
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:22:58 pm
because this was a humorous thread (as stated in the title) taken to a political debate styled level by daskol?
i'm just surprised, though, that no one pointed out my misspelling in the thread title itself
I believe it was established early on
-
TurkeyTetOffensive posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:31:55 pm» quote
- hahahaha god
-
jordivision posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:32:33 pm» quote
- ahahahahhahahahahahaa
-
Butch_Huskey posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:37:37 pm» quote
- HUMERUS BONE, BILL
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:43:18 pm» quote
- Oh. I didn't even see that {images removed}. I take it back.
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:43:53 pm» quote
- Bill. Humerus vs. Humorous.
-
jordivision posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 6:45:15 pm» quote
- hahaha. staples is so dumb
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 8th, 2010 @ 9:13:06 pm» quote
- melancholic posting.
-
Idontbelong posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:48:40 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 10:09:57 pm
when election time comes around, you're given a choice basically between two people. if she were one, and obama were the other, I would choose her.
This woman is only as intelligent as the notes on her hand. You might as well elect an eighth grader as president who's probably more knowledgeable on the constitution and US law than this sexpot, soccer mom, milf.
daskol posted this on February 7th, 2010 @ 5:32:19 pm
one striking example was the themes she touched in her speech. there was a big article a couple of days ago where the pollsters tried to distill the issues and positions that united the diverse groups of tea partiers. she hit on every single issue that unites tea partiers according to that article (basically, issues around the fiscally conservative critique of this administration, and various matters related to national security). she avoided the divisive and contentious stuff (social/family values, etc.).
Yeah, she hit on every issue, because she inscribed a list on her left hand. She probably had her grocery store shopping list on the right - pork, baloney, marshmallow fluff. But if you want to see a preview of the 2012 election, see this 2:30 clip: http://www.hulu.com/watch/126629/nbc-today-show-palin-opens-the-door-to-2012-run [www.hulu.com] »
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 1:26:22 am» quote
-
as a matter of fact, in that trove of emails msnbc got their hands on that led to this embarrassingly weak and hollow attempt at shaming her recently
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35238034/ [www.msnbc.msn.com] »
they mention this:
"At one point, Sarah Palin sent her husband instructions to stock up on "fresh fruit and veggies" for the kids, and "as little processed foods as possible.""
so instead of instructing you to go fuck yourself, I'll try something a little different. why don't you and eisbar go fuck eachother.
-
jordivision posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 1:28:36 am» quote
- lol U high!
-
Idontbelong posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 2:19:57 am» quote
-
The problem is that you see the criticisms of her right in front of you (ie the article about the emails you linked for us), yet you continue to support her. Then when people are critical of your arguments, you insult the critics, instead of their comments. This is the weakest form of debate that may be effective in a heated argument irl, but online where one is just reading words, the method fails.
I'm not criticizing her parenting, nor her husband's grocery shopping prowess. I used "pork, baloney and fluff" as metaphors for her and her politics, not as literal items on her shopping list.
Finally, for all those looking to see the most recent picture of daskol's arguments (2010):
show spoiler
-
Idontbelong posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 2:28:06 am» quote
-
This one's a gem: "Palin 2012 - The World is supposed to end anyways" (for those with images disabled).
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:33:50 am» quote
-
i'm just gonna post this and see if it brings anything to mind for anyone
1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.
The authors draw an analogy with anosognosia – a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability due to brain injury seems unaware of or denies the existence of the disability. This may include unawareness of quite dramatic impairments, such as blindness or paralysis.
-
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:36:34 am» quote
- daskol, for someone who routinely criticizes Obama for being all vague rhetoric and little substance in his speeches, it's particularly odd to be presenting Palin's rambling assortment of conservative platitudes as some kind of visionary political achievement. And as one who pushes the "teleprompter = dumb Obama" meme, you have to admit that were Obama to be photographed with cheat notes on his hand, you'd rip into him for weeks on end.
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:44:07 am» quote
-
hahaha.
and Idontbelong, saying "This woman is only as intelligent as the notes on her hand. You might as well elect an eighth grader as president...", well, that's not really an argument, is it? that's an assertion about her intelligence. that's just like, your opinion man.
and all you do in your post, instead of argue anything, is assert that again, with this "Yeah, she hit on every issue, because she inscribed a list on her left hand..."
as for that silly msnbc piece, what is the argument that report makes about palin? I've read it, watched the msnbc anchors bloviate about their big palin takedown on the day they "broke" this story. I still don't know what it is they think that they've revealed about her in that report. and for once, the rest of the media seems unable to come up with a damaging interpretation of that trove of emails, because I notice that the "story" failed to be picked up by anyone anywhere.
meanwhile your stupid metaphor about her shopping list says nothing about her, but reveals your own prejudices and bigotry--you're calling her white trash, and acting like you've made some decisive argument about her politics.
if you have something to say about the content of palin's address at that convention, say it. if you want to make a larger point about what she represents in american politics and why, and why that's problematic, do it. if you have anything of substance to say other than calling her stupid white trash, say it. but until then, as far as I'm concerned show spoiler
-
beans posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:54:15 am» quote
- hahaha daskol are you really this desperate to argue? i refuse to believe you actually support palin's "politics" (more pandering than politics, really) and just want to call out those who have no respect her for the 'wrong' reasons ("soccer mom," "sexpot," "milf"). in short: what are you doing
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:55:18 am» quote
-
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:36:34 am
daskol, for someone who routinely criticizes Obama for being all vague rhetoric and little substance in his speeches, it's particularly odd to be presenting Palin's rambling assortment of conservative platitudes as some kind of visionary political achievement. And as one who pushes the "teleprompter = dumb Obama" meme, you have to admit that were Obama to be photographed with cheat notes on his hand, you'd rip into him for weeks on end.
did you watch her speech? I didn't think it was just vague platitudes. I thought it was an aggressive critique of the administration's policies. and her dig about obama and the teleprompter was not about the teleprompter. it was an admonition not to be taken in by charismatic leaders, the teleprompter was a prop to indicate how hollow those words are. there is a disconnect between what obama says, and what he does. shit, there's a disconnect between what he says and then what he says later, often in the same speech. I've been hammering that point, and not his need for a teleprompter, since he was campaigning.
people giving speeches use notecards or teleprompters. I don't actually have a problem with that. and you misunderstand people's obsession with obama's teleprompter if you think that's what people take issue with. he has a reputation as a great orator. he's given more speeches than any other president, and rose to national prominence for a single speech he gave in 2004. the teleprompter has come to symbolize the disconnect between the image of obama as this brilliant leader and orator who spews ideologically transcendent rhetoric seemingly at will, and the reality of an often clumsy, very stubborn and highly partisan (and ideological) president.
the teleprompter has become a useful if not entirely fair-minded prop to bash him over the head with. but it is a metaphor, and in the context of palin's speech (I excerpted the relevant passage above, and the glenn reynolds piece gets into it in more detail) it was a metaphor deployed very well. not only that, but she deftly and "humerously" turned HER opposition's clumsy attempt to turn this prop on her with her "Hi Mom" shtick the very next day.
she may be an idiot, but if so, "your side" is currently being trounced by an idiot. and I think not only have I allowed for the possibility that this latest series of politically deft moves may be the result of her building a professional political team around her, I've suggested as much.
-
Butch_Huskey posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:55:43 am» quote
- Daskol, I hope you were drinking a hot beverage while you posted that
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:57:00 am» quote
- haha the daskol is being disingenuous charge YET AGAIN. daskol, why do you think the more intelligent and thoughtful posters here seem to get this impression of you sometimes?
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:57:33 am» quote
-
beans, as difficult as it may be to believe, I'm being completely serious and ingenuous in this thread, and have been since the outset as regards palin (and pretty much any other political position I take). I've also been consistent. I've already posted it in this thread, but my take on her and the tea party movement basically matches this one:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Glenn-Reynolds-Tea-Party-Nashville-was-Americas-Third-Great-Awakening--83762647.html [www.washingtonexaminer.com] »
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:00:13 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:55:18 am
did you watch her speech? I didn't think it was just vague platitudes. I thought it was an aggressive critique of the administration's policies. and her dig about obama and the teleprompter was not about the teleprompter. it was an admonition not to be taken in by charismatic leaders, the teleprompter was a prop to indicate how hollow those words are.
i have an extremely hard time caring enough to get myself to articulate anything about palin, BUT even you can surely admit this particular critique coming from SARAH PALIN, who is probably the best political example of engendering a cult of personality that we have seen in years, is kind of ironic.
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:00:38 am» quote
- the hi mom thing was kinda gangsta, i gotta say
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:08:04 am» quote
-
again, look at the words of her speech. look at everything she's said, for that matter. she does not claim to be the one we've been waiting for. she does not claim to be transformative by her mere presence on the national scene. she's become very popular among her supporters, and she occupies a weird niche since she's developed a bully pulpit without holding any office at this time.
but in her words, as evidenced at this speech, she decries charismatic leadership. she emphasizes that the tea party movement is a bottom up movement, and it should not--must not--have a titular leader, and be subverted by figures from the top. she encourages people to go out and take over their parties at the local level.
so, is she a very popular figure? sure. is her personality a big part of that? absolutely. is it ironic that "a leader with charisma" is admonishing the people about falling sway to "charismatic leaders"? I guess, but it's a pretty superficial irony, since those are not the same thing. I don't think her cult of personality is meaningfully similar to the cult of personality that has arisen around the one, though.
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:14:25 am» quote
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:57:00 am
haha the daskol is being disingenuous charge YET AGAIN. daskol, why do you think the more intelligent and thoughtful posters here seem to get this impression of you sometimes?
in this respect, williamboard is no different than my personal life. I don't really know why, but I'm pretty used to it. "you can't possibly be serious" is how most people react to my stating what I think about politics. I have some ideas about it, and think it has a lot to do with the self-reinforcing effects of studying in and living in an echo chamber, or at least an environment where political opinions like mine are not generally expressed out loud (though I think they're more common than people would think).
a quick anecdote. one of the venture capitalists we've been meeting with, as well as our PR firm, have been pressing us for ages to blog. they say that it's critical in the tech community in ny to have such a presence, and not to confine the blog posts to industry specific stuff but to blog more generally. however, my colleague and I have spent years reading the blogs of the startup entrepreneurs and vc's around here, and we KNOW with a certainty based on reading the hostility there to the kind of ideas we would be putting forth that it could only be destructive to our business to do so. neither the PR firm nor the vc's we've talked to even considered the possibility that sharing our ideas could be potentially problematic, because we seem like nice, smart people to them.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:15:53 am» quote
-
it's easy to say "there's no specific leader" when you're not running a campaign against anyone.
and obama sad similar shit about people getting involved at the local level during his campaign...
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:16:05 am» quote
- yes but she fails to present any factual political ideas, instead she only speaks in general and vague terms about the same few subjects.She fails to offer any political insight, sight any true historic parallels that havent been fed to her from her marketing team,she cant form grammatically correct sentences, and she fails to have any ideas that are agreed upon by middle of the road conservatives.her sensationalism of superficial statements made by other politicians is never backed up with any intelligent assertions about her own political solutions,of which there are scant to none i can think of, aside from her core slogan of drilling.in short she seems like anice enough lady but she has no substance.
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:20:22 am» quote
-
"obama said...", but what did obama do? if you've read the critique of what's happened to OFA since the president became the president, you'll note a strain in the critique. it's become a top-down political organization, and has lost much of its impact and the enthusiasm of its members in the process. there are structural reasons why that would happen to any organization once it's leader ceases being an insurgent and becomes the establishment. however, that does not, in my opinion explain what happened with OFA. I see the obama movement as very much a personality cult around a charismatic leader, where everyone was encouraged to project their own vision onto him. that helped him get elected. this "blank slate" has now been filled in.
as for obama's difficulty in governing the country, and the antidemocratic way in which he's attempted to rule (not govern, but rule), I could say it myself, but jay cost has already said it better.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html [www.realclearpolitics.com] »
-
beans posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:21:55 am» quote
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:16:05 am
yes but she fails to present any factual political ideas, instead she only speaks in general and vague terms about the same few subjects.She fails to offer any political insight, sight any true historic parallels that havent been fed to her from her marketing team,she cant form grammatically correct sentences, and she fails to have any ideas that are agreed upon by middle of the road conservatives.her sensationalism of superficial statements made by other politicians is never backed up with any intelligent assertions about her own political solutions,of which there are scant to none i can think of, aside from her core slogan of drilling.in short she seems like anice enough lady but she has no substance.
this. daskol, i agree with everything you're saying about obama, but you're giving palin a lot more credit than she actually deserves.
-
yawn posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:27:09 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:55:18 am
did you watch her speech? I didn't think it was just vague platitudes. I thought it was an aggressive critique of the administration's policies.
the speech was the most weak tea pep rally I've ever heard any candidate in any party ever give.
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:31:22 am» quote
-
Why do people get so upset over this -- is it because she has a measure of sexual power over men that unattractive policy wonks of both parties find threatening? Looking beyond her looks, she isn't a Rush Limbaugh or a United States Senator or a Governor or anything at this point in the election cycle except a means by which Big Media can fill space and she can make some big money. As for the "Tea Party" moment we seem to be having, for those of us who remember it and how it was covered in the press, it is curiously evocative of the Militia "Movement" the press fixated on early in Clinton's first term.
But who cares about any of this, when in just a few days Iran might reveal a fundamental truth concerning the Hidden Imam?
-
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:32:46 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:20:22 am
I could say it myself, but jay cost has already said it better.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/02/america_is_not_ungovernable.html [www.realclearpolitics.com] » [www.realclearpolitics.com] »
I disagree with this assertion, as it relates to the "ungovernable" issue:
The President's two major initiatives - cap-and-trade and health care - have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That's a good thing.
The issue is that there doesn't need to be a "broad consensus" in the way that our system is set up, there needs to be a majority. You need 51 votes to do anything short of amending the Constitution. The problem currently is that-- regardless of your opinion as to the legitimacy of the tactic-- the mere threat of filibuster is enough to make a 60-vote majority necessary to do anything in the Senate.
He's talking about how the Framers specifically set up the government the way they did, to avoid "tyrannical" rule. But the filibuster didn't exist in the Senate until the early 1800s; it's not in the design of the Framers. And its use as a blanket obstructionist tool is a pretty recent phenomenon.
His points re: the House being too far "left" for the Senate isn't necessarily true, either. There were easily 51 votes for the House's Health Care bill. It was, apparently, too far left for 60 votes, but that's not the bar the legislation should have to reach to be passed.
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:33:09 am» quote
-
beans (and drury), with all due respect, are you fucking kidding me.
"she fails to have any ideas that are agreed upon by middle of the road conservatives"
that is precisely false, and I've explained (and documented) why that is, instead of just asserting it. in particular with this speech, she articulated a fiscally conservative critique of this administration, and in the process articulated the kinds of reforms that she does support. she articulated a strong critique of its foreign policy and national security policy. she explained that we should be supportive of nascent democratic movements and should work to spread democracy. she explained that we are at war, and should treat enemy combatants as such.
you may not like these positions. you may think that these are superficial positions, I suppose. I happen to agree with her, and I noted that she was able to express them in grammatically correct sentences.
as for her political substance, she revealed more of it in this speech than she had heretofore done in any speech. keep in mind that she was the supporting member of the ticket in 2008, so that was mccain's agenda she was selling. she has a record as an executive, you know, so you could look into that if you're curious about how she governs.
as I've said before, I'm not sold on her at all as a presidential candidate. but I really like what I've seen from her lately, and I think she's helping the tea party movement tremendously with her political outreach. she struck the right one in her speech, and I'm hopeful that she will continue to be a force for good in this country.
and I look forward to the apoplectic response she will continue to receive from her haters, even the better spoken ones who find nicer ways and better metaphors they use to call her an idiot than Idontbelong does.
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:34:43 am» quote
- Ù…Øمد بن الØسن
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:38:13 am» quote
-
veebs, you're such a lawyer. he's not saying that the constitution specifically demands a super-majority to get anything done. he's making a more general point about the KIND of system the constitution encourages, where you do need a broad consensus to govern effectively. sure, obama COULD have pushed this stuff through on a party line vote. in fact, he and congress STILL CAN--by reconciliation. the constitution allows this.
there is no political will to do that, because the people who would enact such broad legislation in such a manner fear losing their jobs. and that's cost's larger point, that in your lawyerly fixation you're missing completely. the president and the congressional leadership can jam their agenda through, or at least some parts of it. but if there isn't a consensus, they will have expended all their political capital to do so. and if there isn't a broader consensus, their party and their ideas--their ability to govern--will be dealt a serious blow in the polls. they will lose their jobs. they will lose their power. they will lose the government. that's cost's perfectly uncontroversial point about consensus.
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:41:14 am» quote
-
The issue is that there doesn't need to be a "broad consensus" in the way that our system is set up, there needs to be a majority. You need 51 votes to do anything short of amending the Constitution. The problem currently is that-- regardless of your opinion as to the legitimacy of the tactic-- the mere threat of filibuster is enough to make a 60-vote majority necessary to do anything in the Senate.
No, the problem is that Obama is a weak leader. Ronald Reagan never had control over both the House and the Senate, yet was able to enact most of his agenda in the midst of a recession about as bad as this one. George W. Bush pressed forward with a radical agenda of invasion, deregulation, vast spending increases and tax cuts, all without anything like the big majorities Obama has had in both the House and Senate. The difference is that these Republicans were willing to fight for their beliefs (correct or not), whereas Obama will not or can not.
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:45:37 am» quote
- I disagree dupont. I think that the problem is the substance of his agenda, not his strength or willingness to fight for it. he's pushed very hard and sacrificed an enormous part of his popularity in the process. there's just no consensus for the type of broad transformation that he (and pelosi) wants to effect.
-
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:45:59 am» quote
- I got his point, but the larger point still remains... requiring the expenditure of "political capital" is a consequence of this artificial 60-vote threshold. If the political support exists for a 51-vote majority, why shouldn't legislation be made into law?
-
Colonial Wburg posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:50:15 am» quote
- Should I read this thread? Beans? Daskol?
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:51:22 am» quote
- if you want to see beans and daskol THROW DOWN, yes
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:52:43 am» quote
- there is no will even in obama's own party to do so. cost speculates, correctly I think, that this is because his agenda is too broad, too sweeping and too far to the left for even his own party. cost even describes how this came to be (letting the house leadership come up with the details of the agenda).
-
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:57:43 am» quote
-
I'd like to return to this point, which admittedly places me pretty squarely on THE CHART... but still:
veebs posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 9:36:34 am
[Daskol], you have to admit that were Obama to be photographed with cheat notes on his hand, you'd rip into him for weeks on end.
also, I'd add that were he to "deftly" respond to the controversy by writing "Hi Malia and Sasha" or something on his hand the next day, you'd call him arrogant and unpresidential
::sits back, rests feet on chart::
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:01:47 am» quote
- no I wouldn't. and if he showed up to a press conferenced with a fake teleprompter in his hands, or if he tried to consult a teleprompter and pretended dismay at there not being one there after being asked a tough question, I would be amused. because that would be funny.
-
ghobot posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:02:55 am» quote
- i came onto wboard at the risk of being seen by the internet police at my job to say this: i dont know why anyone would want to argue with daskol on anything because he's going to win somehow. he's the deus ex machina of internet debate. even when cornered, by the best of intentions, a trap door will open up and he will easily slip through it, escaping your clutches yet again.
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:05:23 am» quote
- hahhaha
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:07:31 am» quote
- people still try to fight w/ daskol like this is a conventional internet war, and this is not a conventional internet war. that's why i have moved on to small limited tactical guerilla attacks
-
ghobot posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:11:34 am» quote
- i dont know why you arent using these powers for something more constructive than making internet intellectuals feel dumb (i guess that gives you a high). i really really hope that you are blogging under a pseudonym somewhere. why dont you debate people who are more on your level of rigor and prowess? take on the giants like sullivan, marshall, yglesias, armbinder, fallows, johnson, and people who have actual effects on policy. it makes me kinda sad that you are doing this on wboard.
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:05 am» quote
- Obama ought to have begun his presidency by first going after the Luftmenschen (yeah, there's that word again) of Wall Street in a serious, Paul Adolf Volcker - approved way. This would have earned him big points among the vast majority of Americans who deeply despise these people, and possibly lured foolish Republicans into a lethal electoral ambush. Then perhaps he'd have so cowed them that they'd not dare try turning the Senate into a modern version of the Polish Sejm. Of course, he instead chose to place Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers in key positions of authority and to back Bernanke for another term at the Fed, all of which has drained away much of Obama's political capital.
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:16 am» quote
- HEY FUCK YOU GREG
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:55 am» quote
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:05 am
Obama ought to have begun his presidency by first going after the Luftmenschen (yeah, there's that word again) of Wall Street in a serious, Paul Adolf Volcker - approved way. This would have earned him big points among the vast majority of Americans who deeply despise these people, and possibly lured foolish Republicans into a lethal electoral ambush. Then perhaps he'd have so cowed them that they'd not dare try turning the Senate into a modern version of the Polish Sejm. Of course, he instead chose to place Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers in key positions of authority and to back Bernanke for another term at the Fed, all of which has drained away much of Obama's political capital.
WE GET IT, OK. PACK IT UP AND MOVE OUT ALREADY
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:18:27 am» quote
- yeah fuck you Greg! (I love you Greg)
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:21:09 am» quote
- ghobot, during your (apparent) absence we have learned that daskol is a descendant of the Vilna Goan, Master Talmudist and Lion of Litvish Judaism. That, and the product of years of yeshiva study. One wonders if he might not also be related to famed polemicist Lev Davidovich Bronstein.
-
ghobot posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:24:30 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:17:15 am
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:16 am
HEY FUCK YOU GREG
hahaha. hey, I do it over email too with friends. I've already explained why a public blog would be counterproductive to my purposes at this point.
why, because you are a secret obama lover?
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:29:21 am» quote
- My understanding is that daskol's company has substantial corporate clients. To service such a clientele is to surrender much of one's ability to speak freely on the issues of the day, especially given the all-seeing eye of Google.
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:33:28 am» quote
- re telepromter:but, obama writes his own speeches,on paper even.
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:36:53 am» quote
- citation please
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:38:03 am» quote
- ^motherfucker tried to out me for "liking" the love guru (which i've never seen). don't trust him
-
beans posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:58:24 am» quote
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 10:51:22 am
if you want to see beans and daskol THROW DOWN, yes
ghobot posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:02:55 am
i came onto wboard at the risk of being seen by the internet police at my job to say this: i dont know why anyone would want to argue with daskol on anything because he's going to win somehow. he's the deus ex machina of internet debate. even when cornered, by the best of intentions, a trap door will open up and he will easily slip through it, escaping your clutches yet again.
hahahahaha
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:00:05 pm» quote
- HAHA
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:00:46 pm» quote
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:12:05 am
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:03:04 pm» quote
- ahahahah
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:04:34 pm» quote
- Jew Penis is evil! The Jew Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of evil men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.
-
5dollarBud posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:05:07 pm» quote
-
hah that should have been
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 11:29:21 am
Jew Penis is evil! The Jew Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of evil men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.
-
TurkeyTetOffensive posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:10:01 pm» quote
- HAHAHAHAHA
-
LlewelynDrury posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:41:16 pm» quote
- lolol
-
9 y.o. virgin posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:43:12 pm» quote
- hahahHAHAHAHA
-
9 y.o. virgin posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 12:43:59 pm» quote
- I was totally finger on the trigger to do a "dupont rockefeller posted this" and you guys fucking killed it already
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 4:36:02 pm» quote
-
kinda funny, too.
-
Dupont Rockefeller posted this on February 9th, 2010 @ 5:05:52 pm» quote
-
You people do not understand the concept of "yicchus."
Typical goyim.
-
daskol posted this on February 11th, 2010 @ 7:23:26 pm» quote
-
tea party candidate in texas may (or may not) be a truther. she gets exposed by glenn beck, who is deeply disturbed by her response and basically buries this woman politically. nice knowing you debra medina. next time around, don't be such a dumbass.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/heartache-tea-party-candidate-in-texas-a-911-truther/ [hotair.com] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 11th, 2010 @ 10:02:23 pm» quote
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021004708.html?hpid=topnews [www.washingtonpost.com] »
Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.
"There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House."
-
daskol posted this on February 11th, 2010 @ 10:19:00 pm» quote
-
whatever gets you through the night dude.
But nearly two-thirds of those polled say they know just some, very little or nothing about what the tea party movement stands for. About one in eight says they know "a great deal" about the positions of tea party groups, but the lack of information does not erase the appeal: About 45 percent of all Americans say they agree at least somewhat with tea partiers on issues, including majorities of Republicans and independents...
The new poll shows Republicans divided about the tea party movement, which threatens to cause a rift in the lead-up to November's midterm elections. Two-thirds of those calling themselves "strong Republicans" view the movement favorably, compared with 33 percent among "not very strong Republicans."
...
Even after staging a national convention that garnered worldwide media attention, the burgeoning tea party effort remains something of an enigma.
well it sure is an enigma to these two reporters. lol at this poll and analysis.
I have no idea about palin as a presidential candidate or what percentage of people like the tea parties, but I can sniff a piece of shit poll when I see it. stick to rasmussen or gallup or even quinnipiac--any of the professional polling firms that show their raw results. I don't even see a link to the results on that page.
-
daskol posted this on February 11th, 2010 @ 10:54:18 pm» quote
-
whoa. this is an interesting result to say the least.
quinnipiac's latest poll, very last question.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1423 [www.quinnipiac.edu] »
31. Do you support or oppose a freeze on the overall level of government spending, with an exception for military and mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk His
Support 78% 81% 76% 77% 78% 78% 79% 71% 72%
Oppose 19 16 20 20 20 18 18 25 23
DK/NA 4 3 4 3 2 5 4 4 5
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME...
AGE IN YRS....... 50- 100-
18-34 35-54 55+ <50k 100k 250k >250k
Support 73% 81% 77% 78% 77% 80% 83%
Oppose 24 17 17 18 20 18 17
DK/NA 3 2 6 4 2 2 -
-
daskol posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 10:01:24 am» quote
-
hey veebs, here's how the democrats can get this thing done without having a supermajority behind it. and here would be the consequences.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/pelosi_aide_calls_democratic_p.php [meganmcardle.theatlantic.com] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:06:55 pm» quote
- i dunno it seems like their only option really
-
cbear posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:11:03 pm» quote
- maybe, but just as Gibbs writing shit on his hand makes the administration look petty, cheap, and like they care way more about the Palin threat than they want to admit, they should also know better than calling reconciliation a TRICK. come on!
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:14:18 pm» quote
-
uhhh but "the administration" didn't say "trick" ... some pelosi aide did
but anyway it is no more a "trick" than filibuster. people have been talking about passing this through reconciliation for months
-
veebs posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:14:21 pm» quote
- i realize that's how they can do it... doesn't change my point that it's antithetical to the way the legislature is set up to require an artificially-inflated 60-vote threshold to get anything done short of this convoluted reconciliation process
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:19:55 pm» quote
- i don't think they need to change it... the dems should just force the senators to actually filibuster. once you got joe lieberman up there talking about his socks for 8 hours, people would get more pissed at them for holding up government
-
veebs posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:27:34 pm» quote
- contrary to popular belief, they don't actually have to sit there and talk the whole time. They just need someone on the floor to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote. Dude can be taking a nap or silently playing tetris on his phone or something, I think.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 1:03:02 pm» quote
- really? what about the strom thurmond thing? he wore a diaper!
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 1:13:17 pm» quote
- IF YOU TRY TO GIVE BLACKS RIGHTS I WILL LITERALLY TAKE A SHIT RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU!
-
veebs posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 1:14:27 pm» quote
-
i forget where this came from (daily beast, maybe) but I have it copy/pasted in an email chain with some friends from home on this very topic:
How Cloture Rule Allows Minority To Block Legislation Without "Actual Filibustering"
Under the 1917 rules change the very nature of the filibuster changed. Whereas before any Senator could block any bill by simply talking, this was no longer true. A cloture motion could stop a Senator from talking. At the same time the addition of this procedure added the ability of the minority to block bills without filibustering merely by voting against cloture.
Since the 1950's true filibusters (i.e. Standing on the floor and talking for ever), have been used, more often than not to delay the inevitable, or to block last minute action that the minority party does not like. For example the when Strom Thurmond filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours 18 minutes, the bill was eventually passed.
The last modern filibuster occurred in 2003 over some Judicial nominations. Harry Reid held the floor for nine hours where he read Searchlight (his first book) and I am not kidding, discussed the relative virtues of wooden matches.
Very technically if a single Senator wanted to employ every delay tactic possible, he could stall a single piece of legislation for a week and hold the Senate hostage, not allowing them to conduct any other business. This is basically the threat of the hold. Then the Senate needs to determine first will the Senator carry out the threat, can they be bought off, or is the bill worth a week of the Senates times. Hence a lot of important but minor bills get killed this way.
The byproduct of the cloture rule changes in 1917 and 1974 is you need to invoke cloture to proceed to a bill. Senators don't have to speak to vote against cloture. If you can't get 60, you can't move it to the floor. On the motion to proceed, if a Republican chose to get up they can speak about any topic they want, or they can sit down and begin an endless series of quorum calls. Or they can begin motions to proceed on their own set of bills.
Basically there is no way to force a Senator to speak or vote on any particular bill and if you can't get 60 you can't proceed to final passage.
The "PR Value" Of Making The Minority "Filibuster" For An Indefinite Period Of Time
It's true that if the Majority Leader doesn't file a cloture motion to cut off debate on the floor, the opponents of the bill which the Senate is on can continue to debate on it indefinitely. However, as mentioned in my previous email it will still not force them to do any kind of actual filibustering by forcing them to talk for unlimited hours (like we have seen in the movies).
Again, if someone wants to obstruct a specific piece of legislation, he/she can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time.
As explained above a Senator doesn't need to talk for an indefinite period of time to sustain a "filibuster" under existing rules. All he or she has to do is suggest the absence of a quorum when no one has any more to say on the specific legislation he or she is trying to delay. If someone comes in and wants to speak to give that Senator a hand, he lets them call off the quorum and speak and then he puts another quorum call in. It only takes one member to keep that going, he/she can have colleagues spell them and work in shifts just making sure that if no one is speaking then the chair doesn't put the question, i.e. begin the vote on the amendment, by putting in a quorum call.
So, if anyone was expecting a Republican Senator could have been forced to stay up and speak for hours if not days obstructing the auto legislations or any other bill would most likely have been disappointed since it was a good bet that the Republican conference would have coordinated and keep the quorum calls going. As a result, the public would not see the Republicans out there filibustering they'd see a quorum call or, since after the first three hours of each day debate no longer has to be germane to the pending business, they may see a Republican senator speaking about anything they want.
So not sure how much of a PR value is there not filing cloture to cut off debate. If anyone thinks there would be a show for the networks for hours/days they would have been disappointed because after couple of hours the only thing for network and news media for cover would be some quorum calls
-
daskol posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 4:41:31 pm» quote
-
I feel like some people's affection for specific aspects of the Dem's agenda is overwhelming their good sense as regards our system of checks and balances.
try a simple little thought experiment where the tea party-influenced and reinvigorated GOP takes congress and the executive over the next two elections. they are on a mission to dismantle the federal government. don't you like the fact that they'll need a broader consensus than just 51 senators to see their will be done?
-
Colonial Wburg posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 4:44:37 pm» quote
- You know who else is obsessed w consensus, Daskol? ANARCHISTS
-
Colonial Wburg posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 4:50:10 pm» quote
- Siccening. THIS IS NOT WHAT PERICLES INTENDED
-
veebs posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 4:59:05 pm» quote
- they would need a broader consensus to truly "dismantle" the government or do anything too extreme, because they'd need to basically amend the constitution with a 2/3 majority (and then state legislatures ratifying), something I don't think is likely to happen. With this (relatively) new development in filibuster threats, the threshold for doing ANYTHING legislatively is only 9% lower than the threshold for changing "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to "Congress shall require all citizens to wear SpongeBob underpants"
-
jordivision posted this on February 12th, 2010 @ 5:31:53 pm» quote
- 1,000,000 stong against socialist fire depts!
-
daskol posted this on February 19th, 2010 @ 9:30:43 am» quote
-
LOL @ these protesters. pro-obamacare protesters wielding torches and pitchforks. someone should tell these maroons that they're outnumbered. but hey, if this hastens old-fashioned protesting and thereby revives the tradition of running our corrupt leaders out of town on a rail, I'm all for it.
-
daskol posted this on February 23rd, 2010 @ 4:54:19 pm» quote
-
thoughtful piece on the benefits of partisanship, with a little hint at the end as to why progressives in particular tend not to like it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-23/why-partisan-bickering-works/ [www.thedailybeast.com] »
-
daskol posted this on February 25th, 2010 @ 1:02:07 am» quote
-
lol.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025673.php [www.powerlineblog.com] »
-
Transmigrant posted this on February 25th, 2010 @ 1:22:13 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 25th, 2010 @ 1:02:07 am
lol.
http://www.partisanblogtosupportanythingisay.com [www.partisanblogtosupportanythingisay.com] »
-
daskol posted this on February 25th, 2010 @ 9:42:06 am» quote
- it appears that you have not yet seen enough ass. here's the thing about that post: the context is the discussion that was going on earlier about filibusters and super-majorities and the legislative process in the united states. the video on that site, which is real and not fabricated, features many of the same people who today are threatening "reconciliation" (aka the "nuclear option")and complaining about the need for a super-majority decrying the GOP for even threatening to use such a tactic to press its legislative agenda.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:38:15 am» quote
-
so jake tapper is reporting that obama plans to announce that they're going forward with reconciliation. I watched MSNBC the last couple of nights, and last night especially was devoted to explaining why reconciliation is good and appropriate in this case, and to documenting supposedly "similar" examples of how a GOP led congress used it. I think I have the talking points down now.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-democrats-will-use-reconciliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html [blogs.abcnews.com] »
this video is pretty funny now.
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy [www.breitbart.tv] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:39:36 am» quote
-
lol @ "50+1" strategy.
DO NOT PASS THIS WITH A MAJORITY VOTE. THATS THE PUSSY WAY TO DO IT
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:42:28 am» quote
- to smoke weed and bang chicks, man
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:44:42 am» quote
-
also, that video features obama making that claim regarding needing 60 votes for major legislation.
while I am unhappy at what appears to be the likely outcome of this situation, I am impressed by the willingness of the democrats to fall on their swords for this thing. but for that very reason I doubt that this will go forward. even if they can get 51 senators, they still have to get the votes in the house as well. we'll see if they still have them.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:46:38 am» quote
- dude obama said a lot of shit that he has taken back. that's how people get elected!
-
Transmigrant posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:54:53 am» quote
- Daskol, did you have a problem with the GOP when they used reconciliation?
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:57:43 am» quote
- well you got me there!
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:02:54 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:53:57 am
it's a question of degree. that is, the degree of difference between what one promises and what one does, well, that matters.
didn't he also promise to reform health care? maybe he's breaking a little promise to keep a bigger one
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:09:47 am» quote
-
hahahha. YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY THINK "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" IS A SMALL THING!
(also, we decided to call it the nuclear option so it would sound scarier and bigger)
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:11:20 am» quote
- I'm not sure what your point is. that's how it's been known for a long time, at least since back when bush was having trouble getting his judges through the senate. they threatened "the nuclear option" (well, nucular), although it didn't come to that.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:19:22 am» quote
-
that's not really true, the 2005 nuclear option was "used then to describe a Senate Republican scheme to have the filibuster banned -- permanently -- and only for judicial nominations."
this is just about passing a bill with a majority. it's a good sound bite you got there but not really accurate
-
Transmigrant posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:27:53 am» quote
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:57:20 am
first tell me your opinion about this, and then I'll answer:
For the nineteenth time, I have images removed. Your schtick doesn't work.
So, what's your answer to the question?
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:27:54 am» quote
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:19:22 am
that's not really true, the 2005 nuclear option was "used then to describe a Senate Republican scheme to have the filibuster banned -- permanently -- and only for judicial nominations."
this is just about passing a bill with a majority. it's a good sound bite you got there but not really accurate
I am familiar with this talking point (as I said, I've been watching maddow for the last couple of days). the point is that they were going to get around the filibuster. that was what the nuclear option was about--subverting the ability of the minority to use the filibuster to achieve its aim of blocking something.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:35:10 am» quote
-
but you can call it whatever you want, I guess. it's certainly not in the spirit or even technical rules of what "reconciliation" bills are supposed to be.
the point is, they're using this tactic to attempt to jam through a bill on completely partisan lines. I think we can all agree that this is what they're trying to do. if it bothers you to refer to it as the "nuclear option," then call it something else.
I don't happen to think that the metaphor is all that significant in this case as the actual thing itself is sufficiently blatant as to be transparent use of "political muscle" to subvert the legislative process. but then I think lakoff's views on political discourse are utterly vacuous in general.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:40:28 am» quote
-
well i think we can all agree that they trying to pass a bill using a majority vote. that's what 51/100 is, i believe.
if you think that is subverting the legislative process well you can call it that, too!
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:42:28 am» quote
- Daskol, you should rage against the machine.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:45:55 am» quote
-
veebs posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:39:52 am
subverting the legislative process by passing a bill with a majority vote... HOW DARE THEY
it is quite literally subverting the legislative process. you may think it's a valid thing to do in this case. but that is what it is.
-
veebs posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:50:34 am» quote
- but the fact that they're able to do this means that reconciliation is also "part of the legislative process," no? Just as the filibuster is allowed by the procedural rules, so is reconciliation. This is like claiming that the designated hitter rule is "subverting the baseball process"
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:57:12 am» quote
-
(budget) reconciliation was introduced in the 70s to allow budgets to pass so that budgets couldn't be completely held up by (the ancient) filibuster. read up on it and tell me if what they're intending to do through reconciliation isn't subversion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress) [en.wikipedia.org] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:59:45 am» quote
- hmm seems more like a creative solution
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:03:59 pm» quote
- it's definitely creative. but if you're wondering why criticisms of the move calling it the "nuclear option" and otherwise characterizing it as a subversion of the legislative process are resonating, it's because, well, they're true. I'm not saying that this "shouldn't be allowed." I'm just characterizing it as it what it is, if for no other reason then to make clear that the consequent reactions (read: outrage) of many "on the right" and in the "tea parties" is not a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're talking about opposing something that's good for them, or whatever frankian nonsense media aparatchiks come up with in their attempt to frame this.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:05:28 pm» quote
-
veebs posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:03:41 pm
I was reading that article earlier, actually... regardless of the original intent of the rule, its historical use over the past 36 years indicates that it's as much a legit part of the legislative process as filibustering.
that sounds pretty specious to me. it would strengthen your position if you could document any instance where sweeping, transformative legislation has been passed this way (as opposed to budget/tax related stuff).
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:10:18 pm» quote
- that is, it's perfectly "legit," just not in the way that it's being used in the context of obamacare. you can argue that it's technically acceptable, which I guess the parliamentarian will help decide. and maybe that's true. but that doesn't really impact the position that it's subverting the legislative process. that critique will still resonate because it is valid.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:12:18 pm» quote
-
i dunno i don't think you can say a claim is valid just because it "resonates"
Death Panels, Obama-Nazi, etc etc
-
veebs posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:18:41 pm» quote
- I mean, I acknowledge your point and get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to completely exclude from comparison the use of reconciliation to pass legislation like the Bush tax cuts to the use of reconciliation to pass the health care bill, especially when you consider the impact those tax cuts had
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:19:20 pm» quote
-
"but if you're wondering why criticisms of the move calling it the "nuclear option" and otherwise characterizing it as a subversion of the legislative process are resonating, it's because, well, they're true."
this is some great rhetoric, i'll give you that. but you saying something is true and that it resonates does not make it true. i would say it "resonates" because its good rhetoric, and because it is an alarming characterization.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:23:10 pm» quote
-
but I'm not just asserting that the line of criticism is valid. I'm providing an explanation for it.
the tax cuts comparison--well, the tax cuts were broad in their impact (on the economy and the budget), but that's no 2000+ page piece of legislation utterly transforming our healthcare system.
I don't think that comparison makes the use of reconciliation in the case of obamacare look any better by historical standards.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:40:37 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:10:18 pm
you can argue that it's technically acceptable, which I guess the parliamentarian will help decide. and maybe that's true.
how does this statement prove that it is subverting the process? you're not providing any real explanation for your assertion. what you ARE doing is characterizing your characterization of this process as TRUTH, when it is in fact a biased description of a legal process
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:45:23 pm» quote
-
budget reconciliation was created in the 70s for a specific purpose. using budget reconciliation, which is a measure to limit debate and allow the majority to move a piece of legislation through the senate without convincing 60 members that it's ready to go, to pass obamacare because you can't get cloture in the senate falls outside this circumscribed purpose. the argument that this purpose has already been expanded by previous uses of budget reconciliation, which is supposed to make using it for obamacare seem justified and just business as usual, is unpersuasive. it's not persuasive because comparing the actual pieces of legislation that have been effected using budget reconciliation reveals just how different they were in scope and complexity.
ok? that critique, whether you like it or feel it or not, resonates because it is valid.
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:48:01 pm» quote
- your argument is unpersuasive and therefore not valid.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 12:49:52 pm» quote
-
I'm not saying they "shouldn't be allowed to do it." I'm saying, it's wrong in my opinion, and that's basically why. and if the congress does this, they can expect some people to claim that it is illegitimate legislation--with validity. and if states want to pass laws outlawing specific pieces of the bill (the mandate, for example) or otherwise obstruct it, good for them. and if congresspeople, lots of them, lose their jobs over this, good for us.
and if the next administration takes a similar approach to passing controversial legislation, well, you reap what you sow.
-
daskol posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:34:49 pm» quote
-
obama, in his own words.
2005, on reconciliation:
Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.
2004
"My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen...which means that Democrats and [Republicans] have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"
2006
Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with, uhh, my fellow progressives and -- and some of these have -- have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion -- is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we -- we identify our core base, we throw 'em red meat, we get a 50-plus-one, uhhh, victory. See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a -- a sizeable majority.
2007
[Health care reform] is an area where we're going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-one majority....
You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as president but you can't -- you can't deliver on health -- we're not going to pass universal health care with a -- with a 50-plus-one strategy.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-understanding-of-senate-is-is-that.html [althouse.blogspot.com] »
-
Idontbelong posted this on March 3rd, 2010 @ 11:59:24 pm» quote
- is daskol just talking to himself in this thread or what?
-
daskol posted this on March 5th, 2010 @ 5:52:31 pm» quote
-
McCain calls for new ‘Gang of 14’ to stop Obama's push on healthcare reform bill
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is seeking bipartisan support to block Senate Democrats from using special parliamentary tactics to pass healthcare reform.
The Democratic strategy of using reconciliation to pass changes to the healthcare bill is reminiscent of Republican attempts to force President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees through with a simple majority vote, McCain said Thursday. He implored centrist Democrats to think about the consequences. He even invoked President Barack Obama’s own words to make his case.
And McCain reminded Democrats that he was a member of the bipartisan Gang of 14, which stopped Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) from using the so-called nuclear option in 2005.
It's time for a similar gang, he said. So far, he’s had no takers."
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/85159-mccain-calls-for-new-gang-of-14-to-stop-healthcare [thehill.com] »
-
goldsoundz posted this on March 5th, 2010 @ 6:56:01 pm» quote
-
daskol posted this on February 11th, 2010 @ 10:54:18 pm
whoa. this is an interesting result to say the least.
quinnipiac's latest poll, very last question.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1423 [www.quinnipiac.edu] » [www.quinnipiac.edu] »
31. Do you support or oppose a freeze on the overall level of government spending, with an exception for military and mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk His
Support 78% 81% 76% 77% 78% 78% 79% 71% 72%
Oppose 19 16 20 20 20 18 18 25 23
DK/NA 4 3 4 3 2 5 4 4 5
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME...
AGE IN YRS....... 50- 100-
18-34 35-54 55+ <50k 100k 250k >250k
Support 73% 81% 77% 78% 77% 80% 83%
Oppose 24 17 17 18 20 18 17
DK/NA 3 2 6 4 2 2 -
Sadly, non-defense discretionary spending accounts for less than 20% of the Federal budget. It would be hard to make a real impact on national debt unless you were serious about cutting military spending (impossible when a smaller than expected increase was attacked as a 'cut' a few months back) or finding ways to cut Medicare and Medicaid costs.
[Omitting military expenditures from quoted statistics holds a storied history in Republican efforts to appear fiscally conservative. Given our recent history of wars waged with no intention of paying for them, there's also the disproportionate share of our debt financing to consider]
Ghobot expressed my frustrations above and I generally don't bother to follow your responses at this point.
-
goldsoundz posted this on March 5th, 2010 @ 7:00:15 pm» quote
-
Healthcare legislation passed through the House and the Senate. Should the House adopt the Senate bill, it's hard to criticize the legislation as underhanded.
I have wanted single-payer all along, and would love to see a run at passing that through reconciliation. I can see you and others fairly criticizing that as underhanded. You can hardly believe that the reconciliation portion of healthcare reform will be anything sweeping, can you?
-
daskol posted this on March 5th, 2010 @ 11:04:50 pm» quote
-
yeah, it's all "healthcare legislation," and "healthcare legislation" passed both the house and the senate (on almost perfect party line votes, that is to say, with effectively zero support from the minority party). I mean, they were different bills, but they're both "healthcare legislation," so why go through the bother of following the rules when it comes to making a law? if for no other reason, then because you're a political/ideological minority.
your smarminess is exceeded only by your short-sightedness. in your desire to see this legislation pass, you'd see rules broken that are made to protect you. your views as expressed here clearly put you into a category that is a significant if small minority (at best around 20%).
20% is a much more significant bloc in our checked and balanced legislature than in a more majoritarian system. I doubt that I'd like a GOP congress and/or president with this approach to ramming through highly partisan, transformative legislation. but I bet you'll like it even less.
-
daskol posted this on March 6th, 2010 @ 10:03:07 am» quote
-
interesting.
"Senior GOP aides have been studying the rule book in recent days, and they think they have a game plan. Here’s how they hope it will work.
At risk of oversimplification, the Byrd rule is designed to ensure that reconciliation is used to only make budgetary fixes, not policy ones, to existing legislation. Presuming the House passes the Senate bill, the House will then pass a reconciliation fix to the bill, after which the Senate will then try to pass that fix, too.
At this point Senate GOPers will repeatedly invoke the Byrd rule to ask the parliamentarian to strip individual provisions (ones fixing this or that in the original bill) out of the fix, on the grounds that they are policy fixes. If individual provisions are stripped, it would change the Senate’s version of the overall fix.
That would force the House to vote on it again and again, stalling the process further."
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/gop-strategy-bleed-reconciliation-fix-to-death-with-byrd-rule/ [theplumline.whorunsgov.com] »
-
shark_vs_zombie posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 11:55:54 am» quote
- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/sarah-palin-canadian-health-care.html [latimesblogs.latimes.com] »
-
daskol posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 1:32:42 pm» quote
-
pathetic.
Little did these bloggers know that the source from which they were quoting either deliberately or unintentionally left off the fact that Palin clearly said that the story emanated from when her family lived in Skagway. Skagway is pretty close to Whitehorse [Canada]…
According to the summary of Canada’s health care system by Health Canada, it was only until 1972 that Yukon “create[d] medical insurance plans with federal cost sharing.”
they, uh, paid for their medical care and that was the closest place to get care.
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 1:55:06 pm» quote
-
so daskol, what are your thoughts on Massa?
</can of worms>
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 1:56:42 pm» quote
-
that's all you got? I'm disappointed, sir.
Even Scarborough had some witty banter about the whole Naked Rahm Emmanuel poking him in the chest.
-
daskol posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 1:58:29 pm» quote
- he seems like a big liar. why should I pay attention to what he's saying? I've been pretty much ignoring it, because it will probably go away in a few days. seems like he's doing all this to distract from the accusations that he sexually harassed a male staffer.
-
daskol posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 1:59:55 pm» quote
-
this guy's been all over massa since the news of the harassment charge leaked.
http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4 [www.boblonsberry.com] »
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:05:41 pm» quote
- that link's a pretty astute assessment. He's an attention-seeking snake int he grass. But I guess I'm glad that dipshits like Beck and Limbaugh are latching on to him, just so that they can disavow it in a week or two.
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:11:08 pm» quote
-
they already have. from that Lonsberry piece:
"Limbaugh and Beck have trumpeted him, and Beck has promised him an entire hour of national television tonight. Massa opposed Obamacare because it wasn’t liberal enough – because it didn’t entirely nationalize health care with a single-payer system – and Beck is about to crown him queen of the tea party."
"Last night, Beck breathlessly Tweeted the news that he had spoken to Massa off the air and was excited to have him for an entire hour on TV tonight."
"I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody offers him a TV commentator job somewhere. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he keeps getting away with it. If Limbaugh and Beck say he’s OK – and they will have to now, to save face – then millions of people will think he’s OK too."
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:42:20 pm» quote
- well, the tweeting and the trumpeting has. but the hour has not. we'll see if it does.
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:50:27 pm» quote
-
I'm not that interested. I was just hoping for a diatribe akin to that post, but from you. The one link will do just fine.
I'm really just waiting for the Gaffe-fest that will be Biden in the Middle East. I like the guy. I really do, but putting him on the international stage is like a train wreck.
and if that's not enough, MSNBC's got Chris Matthews and his big fat baby head following him around. Just put Scarborough out there too and it's like a middle aged encephalitic sideshow.
-
daskol posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:52:25 pm» quote
- other than his smile and seemingly affable manner, what is there to like about biden? he's a career hack and he's spent his life as a leech on the body politic. his greatest asset appears to be that he's been around forever and never fucked an intern.
-
5dollarBud posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:53:56 pm» quote
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:50:27 pm
and if that's not enough, MSNBC's got Chris Matthews and his big fat baby head following him around. Just put Scarborough out there too and it's like a middle aged encephalitic sideshow.
ar...aroundthewayboy?
-
Butch_Huskey posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:54:56 pm» quote
- OH SHIIIIIT
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 9th, 2010 @ 2:57:53 pm» quote
-
well, there's the affability, for one. I used to be a Bike Messenger in DC for years. You deal with a LOT of asshole reps and senators (ahem, ted kennedy), and Joe Biden was fuckin' swell. I also always enjoyed watching him get so indignant during confirmation hearings. It was like watching your big brother tear into the jerk at the pizza hut or something. Wasn't necessarily inspiring, or even accurate. Hell, half the time he didn't even have a point. But that was good watchin'!
so, in summary:
<popcorn.gif>
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 10th, 2010 @ 2:00:49 am» quote
- At long last, Glenn Beck admits to wasting an hour of at least somebody's time.
-
crustmassacre posted this on March 10th, 2010 @ 2:02:00 am» quote
- too bad it's just some dipshit closeted politician who can figure out which side of his own story he's telling.
-
daskol posted this on March 10th, 2010 @ 2:57:32 pm» quote
-
As someone who both lives in Whitehorse and has spent time with the Palin family, I'd like to take this opportunity to do something I've never felt moved to do before: defend Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/sarah-palin-canadian-health-care-031010#ixzz0ho0CgoHD [www.esquire.com] »
page generated in 3.1289939880371 seconds