Don't visit FDR's birthplace/grave/presidential library if you are a naturally labile person who is particularly despairing of politics right now. (I did buy a "We Want FDR Again" button.)
See, but now that there are owl droppings on the shirt, any little bit you're able to clear away can be sold as a successful, adult compromise.
The criticism is void for vagueness: "plenty of ... however long ... to the left of ... some progressive tendencies...." I thought the Internet was about the specifics that the lamestream media shuffle to the gutters, man.
3 is a little more dickish on-screen than it was in my head. Sorry.
Some nutcase friend told me that the way we solve our debt problem is by giving Taiwan to China.
Not sure what to do about the shirt, though.
I just clicked through to the post and what gets me about the update isn't the attribution of Obama's reluctance to fight for taxes on rich people like himself, but the fact that really, aside from being President, being a successful author is about the most you can say for Obama at this point. Plenty of people have been in a state Senate, and he wasn't in the U.S. Senate long. Those are not undistinguished roles, but the U.S. biographical director of Congress if full of obscure, forgotten people. Some of whom wrote forgotten books, too.
From the title, I expected a more erotic post.
From the title, I expected a more erotic post.
The post may be a lost cause at this point, but there's still hope for the thread.
As someone who owns three birds, I can assure you that it's extremely hard to get bird droppings off a shirt.
"Welshman," "erotic," and "droppings" in the same thread inexorably lands one in a sheep-fold.
aside from being President, being a successful author is about the most you can say for Obama at this point
Let's not exaggerate. First black president of Harvard Law Review? Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School?
Or maybe you're talking about political accomplishment only, in which case I don't get the relevance of having written a book.
I mean in terms of lasting famous-for, but I also do mean in politics, mostly. First black editor of Harvard Law Review, I see. Lecturer at Chicago Law, eh, I guess there haven't been many people in that position, so maybe. Anyway, I didn't see he hasn't been successful.
My comments are getting less and less coherent.
Anyway, it's obviously a stacked comparison, as the man is President and you can't really brush that one aside.
||
A neighbor has just fed us unexpected banana pudding, so I'm feeling a little better.
|>
Those weren't bananas in the pudding.
That certainly would have been unexpected.
Eh, believe what you want to believe, foolish liberal.
Dsquared seems uncharacteristically sanguine about the "excellence" of those advances in healthcare delivery.
I've never had banana pudding. Is it better than chocolate?
It's better at tasting like bananas.
My suspicion is that chocolate pudding tastes more like chocolate than banana pudding tastes like bananas.
And much more than Yorkshire pudding tastes like Yorkshire.
No one's had the courage to say it aloud, but I will.
d^2: behind your back, we all call your war owl "Hootie".
16
Anyway, it's obviously a stacked comparison, as the man is President and you can't really brush that one aside.
Sure you can, you can attribute his rise to the Presidency to a combination of affirmative action foolishness and extreme good luck. In which case his failings in what is after all a very difficult job are not unexpected. I am not sure I believe this but you can certainly make the case.
And now I'm sorry I wrote a comment that could be turned in the direction of 27.
[A] combination of affirmative action foolishness and extreme good luck.
The pole-reversing power of affirmative action, in the minds of conservatives, is belied by the fact that the circumstances of African-Americans are still pretty bad, at large. As a corollary, to attribute Obama's winning the presidency to affirmative action is just stupid, like the rest of the "we don't really know him" rubbish the Republicans have been selling for the past few years. Even if by "affirmative action" one means, as I tend to think conservatives do, "white guilt," well, I think the foregoing still applies, mutatis mutandis.
As for good luck, I wouldn't consider a man lucky for having to succeed George W. Bush or bear the responsibility for the recession that anybody could have seen coming.
29
As for good luck, I wouldn't consider a man lucky for having to succeed George W. Bush or bear the responsibility for the recession that anybody could have seen coming.
I didn't say his luck continued after becoming President. But during his political rise he was lucky in that many of his opponents became embroiled in scandal or otherwise self-destructed. And his general election campaign greatly benefited from the unpopularity of GWB and from the financial crisis. People mostly don't blame Obama for causing the recession, but many think he could have done more to fix things. Or at least tried to do more.
30: What are the James B. Shearer prescriptions for fixing things?
I don't even think you can argue that Obama is a successful anti-Christ at this point.
30: that's not luck James, that's knowing when to run for president. Obama was smart enough (and still just obscure enough) to sit out 2004; by 2008 he knew that there was not going to be a credible Republican candidate once Bush was gone. So did all the Democratic big guns, or have you forgotten Clinton (H) et all?
That a relative newcomer like Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination from her in a year when any candidate could be almost sure to win the presidency speaks volumes about his political skill.
It's just a pity his actual politics are so shite, but that had been the case with any Dem. candidate.
To repeat myself from an earlier thread, we've had a decade of sensible liberals telling people off for criticising the Democrats and arguing that the only hope to get the country to move to the left is by supporting democratic candidates. How is that working out so far?
33
That a relative newcomer like Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination from her in a year when any candidate could be almost sure to win the presidency speaks volumes about his political skill.
Or Clinton's lack of political skill. It is my understanding that Clinton depended on a tight closed clique of long time advisors (noted more than for their skills at sucking up and flattery than for astute political analysis) which drove many talented political operatives into the Obama camp.
But during his political rise he was lucky in that many of his opponents became embroiled in scandal
FFS, it's not luck that the man isn't involved in scandalous behavior. I know you righties are helpless in the face of gay sex bribery temptations, but not all of us are.
Sadly, Obama has not made excellent advances in health care to the poor. I ain't counting that stuff till I see it happen in 2014. At this rate he'll have given it all away plus a giant chunk of Medicaid.
However, unlike Fidel, he does respect elections. (Cue McManus to say he shouldn't).
I know you righties are helpless in the face of gay sex bribery temptations, but not all of us are.
I'm not entirely clear about what the word "gay" is modifying in the foregoing.
31
What are the James B. Shearer prescriptions for fixing things?
There was a lot of fraud and corruption in the later stages of the housing bubble. It wasn't practical to prosecute it all but I think it would have made sense to select and prosecute a few of the more egregious cases. Even if this made little difference economically it would have been beneficial politically. But for reasons I don't understand the Obama administration decided to give everyone a pass. They also didn't do much to reform the financial system so as to prevent future problems.
I think a Carbon tax is good idea for multiple reasons. It would be born in part by foreign oil producers, it would reduce oil imports thereby helping the trade balance, it would help prepare for peak oil (and the following decline in oil production accompanied by dramatic price increases) and it would reduce the budget deficit.
I think the Bush tax cuts have proved to have been a big mistake (economically) and should have been allowed to expire. And things like the ethanol tax credit should be eliminated.
I would favor a much less aggressive foreign policy. I don't think our various wars are helping us much.
Something needs to be done to restrict the growth rate of medical expenses in general and medicare in particular but I don't have a plan worked out.
The patent system needs drastic reform.
I would greatly restrict immigration as I don't think it benefits existing Americans who the goverment (in my opinion) should be serving.
Much of this stuff would have been politically difficult for Obama (particulary since he made a number of unnecessary and unwise campaign promises to the contrary which he seems wedded to). Also a lot of it probably wouldn't do much for (and might hurt) the economy in the short run. I think fixing the economy in the short run is a difficult problem for which there may be no good solution. Anyway I am not confident that I have a short term fix.
a President who imprisons people without human rights in Cuba, but who has made excellent advances in the field of bringing healthcare to the poor.
... but at least Obama, unlike Castro, isn't actually explicitly renting out his troops to protect Chevron's investments. And Obama is involved in slightly fewer wars in Africa than Castro.
Both, however, have the ability to drive Republicans to frothing insanity despite their actual inability to achieve much in terms of affecting US politics and society.
38: This is what makes you so irritating. Other than the immigration line, that's all fairly sensible.
unlike Fidel, he does respect elections.
Well, I think Fidel respects elections, otherwise he wouldn't have any. He just makes sure that only CPC candidates run in them, so he's bound to win.
(cf Chesterton: "The average criminal is a bad man, but he is at least a conditional good man. Burglars respect property; they only wish the property to become theirs that they may more perfectly respect it. Bigamists respect marriage, otherwise they would not go through the ceremony of marriage with so many women.")
38 is almost entirely* good sound mainstream stuff, and puts Shearer well to the left not only of the Republican Party but also of the Democratic Party.
(*immigration aside but this is a minor point of disagreement)
I would greatly increase benefits to the not-yet-existing Americans, as it would significantly decrease their need to immigrate.
I am not sure I believe this but you can certainly make the case.
A lot of the talk of Obama's failed presidency assumes a fact not in evidence: that his presidency has failed. He's certainly disappointed liberals, but that seems to have been his intention.
To repeat myself from an earlier thread, we've had a decade of sensible liberals telling people off for criticising the Democrats and arguing that the only hope to get the country to move to the left is by supporting democratic candidates. How is that working out so far?
It might have worked out better if progressives and Democrats in general had bothered to get off their asses and vote in the midterms. Obama is saddled with a congress full of insane morons and now it's all "Waah! Why aren't you enacting progressive policies? Waah!"
42
38 is almost entirely* good sound mainstream stuff, and puts Shearer well to the left not only of the Republican Party but also of the Democratic Party.
This is a bit misleading as I was mostly restricting myself to things a Democratic President like Obama could plausibly do. So I didn't say anything about getting rid of affirmative action for example (well I also forgot about that plank of my beliefs). And my Supreme Court picks would be well to the right of Obama's. And raising income taxes on everyone is arguably to the right of the Democratic plan to soak the rich only.
44
A lot of the talk of Obama's failed presidency assumes a fact not in evidence: that his presidency has failed. He's certainly disappointed liberals, but that seems to have been his intention.
I believe he has lost popularity with all groups. While some of this is normal he is starting to look a lot like Carter to me, in over his head.
soak the rich only
Which is an asinine characterization of returning to those terrible rates which so enfeebled the rich during the 1990s. I know that was a dark time for the wealthy...
48
Which is an asinine characterization of returning to those terrible rates which so enfeebled the rich during the 1990s. I know that was a dark time for the wealthy...
You missed my point entirely. Returning to Clinton's rates is my preference. Obama's stated preference is to keep the Bush cuts intact for most people and only raise taxes on the rich. This is more hostile towards the rich than returning to the 1990s rates (as well as less sensible economically in my opinion). And in practice as we have seen it means keeping the Bush cuts (which now should be called the Obama cuts) for everybody.
Your point was shit, and not missed in the least. The very wealthy have vastly improved their lot, while the middle class has--at best--been treading water.
I've come to the belief that Obama has been mostly successful with his goals.
Sadly, his goals are not my goals.
He is a conservative negotiating with far right wingers to reach a compromise.
Ive also come to the belief that Social Security and Medicaid are going to be slashed. They slashed the disabled's community respite hours from 720 to 480 this year already. It apparently is only going to get worse.
Yet, the rich keep getting richer.
James, I've increasingly come to the view that you reached your station in life via the well-entrenched affirmative action program for white male idiots who happen to test well.
#3: I thought that putting Brad's name in the post would have been a little obvious.
44: Since he's going to lose in 2012, it's failed even on its own terms.
The Shame Sets In ...Jane Hamsher
Just pictures of signing ceremonies at the WH; Obama all alone alone alone this time, and he is not smiling.
This morning I woke up to NPR saying Obama was focusing anew on jobs, and his plans were... trade agreements, patent reform, and extending the payroll tax cuts. Buh-arf.*
When you've just been complicit in draining trillions of dollars out of the economy, though, I suppose re-embracing DLC crapola is a tonic.
* Quarter marks for the last one, and the NYT says he's also on about unemployment benefit extensions.
56: Patent reform might be good too, depending on how it's done, but unlikely to be a major short-term stimulus.
Even in the long term, optimal patent reform would I think remain a pretty minor factor of stimulus.
58: I was thinking about the possibility that it might unlock some growth-driving innovations. Not technically stimulus in the Keynesian sense, but removing an impediment to growth.
I could get more precise if I cared, but I'd give that somewhere between a 5-15% chance of working if the reform were done right.
I also think 38 is sensible, and agree also with James' statement that we need to limit immigration. There's a reason why the liberal golden age of 1925-65 (which was also the golden age of the American middle class) featured strong immigration barriers. It's hard to consolidate working class gains with a constant influx of cheap labor. There's been a huge wave of immigration over the past 45 years and a period of lower immigration would permit better absorption of that influx.
56: extending the payroll tax cuts just sprinkles a little money around the economy without doing much really -- they could not be more centrist as an economic stimulus and were a Bush policy before Obama. Extending UI benefits is humane but an extremely poor substitute for direct job creation. Basically, all we get for having a centrist Democrat now is someone who is willing to say that somewhat higher taxes for zillionaires are preferable to actually throwing unemployed people out on the street.
extending the payroll tax cuts
AKA worsening our social security solvency crisis. (The one that exists only in the minds of Republicans and certain uninformed deficit hawks.) Good thing we've got a congressional "supercommittee" well positioned to take an axe to entitlements, otherwise the scolds could start scolding.
But yippee for stimulus, I guess. Oh, wait: that's not actually stimulus at all, since the tax cuts are already in effect. It's just the prevention of anti-stimulus. Well, that's something, I guess. I wonder how many antistimulative measures he'll have to give the Republicans in exchange, in order to get their approval?
56: This is the Clinton '96 re-election playbook. Millions of micro-initiatives that fill up a State of the Union address that make it sound like the administration cares and is doing useful work.
63: Makes sense. Good, safe strategy when the economy's up. Though Obama's shit feels drab even by comparison with Clinton's at his most Dick Morrised-est.
How is it even conceivable that Republicans could oppose extension of the payroll tax cuts? Isn't the expiration of a temporary tax cut exactly what they've spent the last few years trying to convince everyone is exactly the same thing as a tax increase? Are the Republicans really in favor of tax increases?
I suppose maybe they could attempt to bargain for an extension of the Bush cuts for high-earners in exchange for the payroll cuts. They've already staked out a position of "we're not in favor of tax increases for anyone (so we won't support bills that prevent tax increases only for some)." But since the payroll cuts and the Bush cuts expire at different times, that seems like it might be a difficult strategy to implement.
How is it even conceivable that Republicans could oppose extension of the payroll tax cuts?
I'll guess that it's because they think that if the payroll tax cuts aren't extended, Obama can be saddled with the charge that he raised taxes. The public will never realize that Republican obstructionism might have blocked their extension, so the thinking would go. The thinking may well be right. On the other hand, a good portion of the American public doesn't realize they've been enjoying a payroll tax cut in the first place.
I haven't read any Republican statements in opposition to the extension of the payroll tax cut, though, so I don't know what their spin is.
Hi, guys! Who wants a body massage?
I walked by a restaurant today called "Bipartisan Burgers." It looked kind of fancy, so I didn't check to see if shit sandwich was on the menu.
If 67 is meant to suggest that logic has no place in certain strains of Republican political rhetoric, well, I know that, but that's not going to stop me from bitching about it.
I'm guessing he found it because of 53. He's commented here before, so clearly he reads here.
Probably reads d-squared as well. Dude seems to read pretty much everything.