PDA

View Full Version : No cap, no trade: discuss


Wonderment
07-22-2010, 10:52 PM
The blame game. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40132.html)

Whatfur
07-22-2010, 11:18 PM
The blame game. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40132.html)

Let me congratulate them on coming to their senses even if it was for purely political reasons.

chiwhisoxx
07-22-2010, 11:30 PM
But, but, but...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

(not endorsing Althouse, just googled something close to the quote and this is the first thing that popped up, so let's not derail this thread with Althouse hate)

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 12:16 PM
The blame game. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40132.html)

Linking to the rePubOLITICO writing about "the blame game" does not seem a very useful way of starting a discussion.

Unless all you're interested in discussing is the soap opera aspect of politics, I mean.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 12:18 PM
But, but, but...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

(not endorsing Althouse, just googled something close to the quote and this is the first thing that popped up, so let's not derail this thread with Althouse hate)

If you don't want to invite Althouse-bashing, or more importantly, be thought of as someone who endorses her vapid take on matters, don't link to her. I must say that the excuse that she was at the top of the Google listings has got to be about the most lazy-ass thing I've ever heard, so much so that it's hard to believe you're being honest about why you linked to her.

chiwhisoxx
07-23-2010, 12:49 PM
Wait, wait, wait. A few things. You think politico is skewed to the right? Are you mentally deranged? High comedy after we get done reading Laura Rozen's stuff from Journolist, the former Mother Jones writer...who is now at politico.

And the point of me saying not to derail the thread with Althouse stuff was...for you to not derail the thread with Althouse stuff. I really don't care if you think it's "lazy" for me to link her, as plumbing the depths of the internet to find a different site to simply link a quote doesn't seem like a productive use of my time.

Wonderment
07-23-2010, 02:00 PM
I see Politico as kind of middle of the road, or trying to be, like Time or Newsweek.

Be that as it may, the point is not the news source, but to discuss the question of why Cap and Trade has failed. I thought it was outrageous that the "administration source" blamed "environmentalists." I thought that would be an interesting point of contention.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 02:24 PM
Wait, wait, wait. A few things. You think politico is skewed to the right? Are you mentally deranged? High comedy after we get done reading Laura Rozen's stuff from Journolist, the former Mother Jones writer...who is now at politico.

Yes, I do think Politico is "skewed to the right," or more precisely, bent over backwards to favor the Republicans. I do not think your mention of one lower-echelon staffer negates my view of the organization overall. There's probably someone who voted for Obama working at FoxNews, too, to illustrate with a slightly more stark example.

As for the state of my mental health, I'll leave it for others to decide, since self-diagnosis in this regard is thought (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+you+think+you%27re+crazy+you%27re+n ot.%22) to be inaccurate.

And the point of me saying not to derail the thread with Althouse stuff was...for you to not derail the thread with Althouse stuff.

All right, so from now on, I'll feel free to say things like I'm not saying chi is a transparently disingenuous dumbass, so don't get all worked up or sidetracked, but it's easy to see through his idiotic dishonesty. Will that work for you?

As I said elsewhere, save your bullshit disclaimers for people who are looking to buy a bridge.

I really don't care if you think it's "lazy" for me to link her, as plumbing the depths of the internet to find a different site to simply link a quote doesn't seem like a productive use of my time.

Yeah, I can imagine from the content of your recent spate of posts how valuable your time is that you dare not spend five seconds of it scrolling down a page of Google results.

Just keep digging, chi. It'll save the rest of us the work of exposing you for what you are.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 02:39 PM
I see Politico as kind of middle of the road, or trying to be, like Time or Newsweek.

Be that as it may, the point is not the news source, ...

If that's not your point, then I'll save my rant about your wrongness here for another time. But be advised that I do not at all share your view of the rePubOLITICO, and that there are very many other lefties [added: not to mention many others in the media biz] who would also take exception to it, both as far as ideological leanings go and how the organizations differ in their view of what constitutes good journalism. (Which is not to say that I have any love for Time or Newsweek, but it is to say I look down on them less.)

... but to discuss the question of why Cap and Trade has failed. I thought it was outrageous that the "administration source" blamed "environmentalists." I thought that would be an interesting point of contention.

Hmmm. Maybe it's just me, but I would say that's a rather obscure point to expect people to pick up from the way you just dumped the link and titled the thread as you did. You might have more clearly made your opening point with something like this:

Just saw (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40132.html#ixzz0uWmWsvE0) an interesting claim:

One exasperated administration official on Thursday lambasted the environmentalists – led by the Environmental Defense Fund – for failing to effectively lobby GOP senators.

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” the official told POLITICO. “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

And by "interesting," of course, I mean "outrageous." Leaving aside the rest of the gossip in that article, does anyone think this is as bad as I do?

To which, I have to say, I'd probably only shrug. This is standard stuff to the most banal degree -- an important bill fails, and a reporter flips through his Rolodex looking for juicy quotes so he can tell a Controversy and Strife story. And worse, he won't even require people to go on the record with him. Pardon me if I think this is at about the level of a mean kid in junior high school coming up to me and saying "This other guy told me that there's these people talking smack about you when you're not around."

I'd rather see another type of article, or even better, read your own words, if you really want to discuss whether environmentalists should be blamed for the inability of Harry Reid to get 60 votes.

chiwhisoxx
07-23-2010, 02:47 PM
Yes, I do think Politico is "skewed to the right," or more precisely, bent over backwards to favor the Republicans. I do not think your mention of one lower-echelon staffer negates my view of the organization overall. There's probably someone who voted for Obama working at FoxNews, too, to illustrate with a slightly more stark example.

As for the state of my mental health, I'll leave it for others to decide, since self-diagnosis in this regard is thought (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+you+think+you%27re+crazy+you%27re+n ot.%22) to be inaccurate.



All right, so from now on, I'll feel free to say things like I'm not saying chi is a transparently disingenuous dumbass, so don't get all worked up or sidetracked, but it's easy to see through his idiotic dishonesty. Will that work for you?

As I said elsewhere, save your bullshit disclaimers for people who are looking to buy a bridge.



Yeah, I can imagine from the content of your recent spate of posts how valuable your time is that you dare not spend five seconds of it scrolling down a page of Google results.

Just keep digging, chi. It'll save the rest of us the work of exposing you for what you are.

This is beyond the point of useful, and I should restrain, but whatever. Your time seems to be valuable enough that you spend about 22 hours a day on these boards, so winning a fight with you is pretty much impossible, if only for reasons of volume.

And just for the record, you got incredibly pissy...because of the site I used to link a story, that had nothing to do with the story.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 02:54 PM
This is beyond the point of useful, and I should restrain, but whatever. Your time seems to be valuable enough that you spend about 22 hours a day on these boards, so winning a fight with you is pretty much impossible, if only for reasons of volume.

Ah, yes. The wingnut pout of last resort. BRENDAN SPENDS A LOT OF TIME ON THIS SITE SO THEREFORE HE'S WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!1!

Get thee yon (http://is.gd/dDCj7).

And just for the record, you got incredibly pissy...because of the site I used to link a story, that had nothing to do with the story.

Emph. added. 'Nuff said.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 04:55 PM
Christina Bellantoni at TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/van-jones-to-netroots-quit-beating-up-on-obama.php) reports:

Van Jones To Netroots: Quit Beating Up On Obama

Las Vegas -- Former White House green jobs "czar" Van Jones told progressive activists and bloggers today that, rather than bash President Obama for not changing the country as fast as they'd thought, they should maintain hope and help him with his agenda.

"I can't stand it. President Obama volunteered to be the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg," Jones said at Netroots Nation while being interviewed by journalist Ari Melber of The Nation. (Follow our live coverage here (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/live-tweets-from-netroots-nation-featuring-christina-bellantoni.php).)

Jones, who resigned last year after conservatives targeted him as an extreme leftist, refrained from any Obama-slamming of his own. Speaking to a large second-day crowd, Jones reminded the group that he quit and wasn't pushed out. "I resigned. I did not want to be the banana peel that the president of the United States slipped on trying to win on health care," Jones said.

He cautioned bloggers from despairing and going after Obama. "This is harder than it looks. Having spent six months in the White House, it's a totally different experience when you're sitting there and the missiles are coming over the horizon at you," he said.

While some expected Jones, now with the Center for American Progress, to go after the administration for failing to get climate change done this year, he said he thinks it still can be done.

Jones said he agrees with Sen. John Kerry, who said today that his bill has a chance in the lame-duck session after the midterm election. "He is right that thing this is not over.
... There are many things that can change the math," Jones said. He said that "red state America is struggling because of our stupid energy policy" and that if the government doesn't act, the U.S. will go from an oil economy from Middle East to a clean energy economy imported from Asia, "skipping the jobs" in between.

Jones said that while, "most of us feel lost and lonely," the netroots should soldier on.

"If you keep the hope alive, change is still possible," Jones said in his opening speech. Jones said the group can't allow themselves to "blow your own candle out. We have to keep hope alive."

He said progressives "did not lay down" during the 8 years of the Bush administration and shouldn't "expect other people to lay down for you" just because Obama's election was celebrated as a breakthrough.

"We really believed we'd gotten to some sort of finish line. In fact all we'd done was gotten to a starting line," he said.

Jones said the netroots need to realize they are up against an "epic" force with the conservative media movement, which is trying to "bury everything you fought for everything you believe in," and comparing it to the Lord of the Rings. "These are orcs, they are here, and they are coming for you," he said.

chiwhisoxx
07-23-2010, 07:27 PM
So long as we're somewhat on the topic of progressive criticisms of Obama, I'm curious to see what liberals think of this article from WaPo. Do you think Markos is being smart/fair by suggesting what he does here? Two separate questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204531.html

AemJeff
07-23-2010, 08:11 PM
So long as we're somewhat on the topic of progressive criticisms of Obama, I'm curious to see what liberals think of this article from WaPo. Do you think Markos is being smart/fair by suggesting what he does here? Two separate questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204531.html

He's Firebagging. The message seems to be "give me everything I want - NOW; or fuck you!" Never mind that you never get everything you want and political change requires investments of time and effort. The idiot ideologues on both sides deserve each other.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 08:56 PM
So long as we're somewhat on the topic of progressive criticisms of Obama, I'm curious to see what liberals think of this article from WaPo. Do you think Markos is being smart/fair by suggesting what he does here? Two separate questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204531.html

The Markos-related section of that article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204531.html), for reference:

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos blog and an organizer of the first such annual conference five years ago, said he and his followers are disinclined to help Democratic candidates simply to preserve the party's big majorities.

"There's a lot of Democrats I'll be happy to see go," Moulitsas said in an interview. "I'll celebrate when Blanche Lincoln is out of the Senate. There is a price to be paid for inaction and incompetence. We're not getting much done with 59 [Democratic senators], so if we're down to 54, who cares?"

Moulitsas went on to suggest that a smaller Democratic majority in the House might be better for advancing a more progressive agenda. "If 20 Blue Dogs lost their seats, nobody's going to care," he said. "That's their problem and I'm not going to cry about them. To me, a more cohesive caucus might be a better deal moving forward than one in which the Blue Dogs need to be appeased."

"Smart/fair?" Hard to say yes/no.

If you mean by "fair" are his criticisms fair, I'd say, sure. As much as anybody's, at least. He can make a solid case for his desires not being met, promises he believed in not getting delivered, etc. If you mean by "fair" is it reasonable to expect that all of his desires could have been met, I'd say, no, he's being unreasonable -- unrealistic, even -- in that sense.

I think that it is perfectly legitimate for someone to feel as though pressure from the left has to be kept up in order to keep the Dems from drifting ever rightward. I think it is perfectly legitimate for a liberal to be upset at the antics or lack of action of some of the more conservative and/or business-friendly and/or risk-averse and/or whatever Democrats. I think it is a legitimate point of view to think that a DINO ought to be voted out of office, even if it's only out of irritation and one does not expect to be able to keep that seat by immediately pushing forward a more liberal candidate.

All this, especially the last part, can be seen as taking the long view, thinking strategically, etc. In the general case, I would not have too much of a problem with it, and in fact, I applauded such attitudes when they were on display back in 2004 and 2006.

However, in the specific case of 2010, I think the smarter approach is for everyone on the left and/or nominally a Democrat to stick together, because (1) we are in a bad economic situation, which always hurts the incumbents and majority party, and (2) the Republicans currently in Congress and most likely to get voted into office strike me as about 95% stone fucking crazy. While Markos might be a little bit right about Blanche Lincoln, on one bill, I don't think he's even close to being right with his 59 ... 54 ... who cares? attitude. Because the difference is having to get five more Republicans to sign on to get anything done in the Senate. We already know how hard it is to get one. I guarantee Markos we will get nothing done in the next two years with 54 Dems in the Senate, and then "lack of accomplishments" will be hurled at Obama by the right and the SCLM for all of 2012.

Also, I think, like Jeff, that it's firebagger-level nonsense to say we haven't gotten much done over the past 18 months. I would say to him: Moonbat, please.

So, taken literally, I think he sounds like a bonehead. However, I'm not sure I take him literally. I think there is still some time for Netroots Nation to push the Dems in office for a bit. Note the next sentence after the above:

His bold statement came as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) are scheduled to address the convention Saturday and take questions from the audience.

You generally don't get much respect from the powers that be unless you can threaten them with withholding support, be it financial or otherwise. So, in this sense, I could see Markos's talking of today as negotiating tactics. And the fact that he's got the two most powerful members of Congress coming to visit, in person, ain't exactly chopped liver.

So, as to the question of Smart?, I'll have to reserve judgment until we get nearer Election Day, but I sure won't say "dumb" right now.

Sorry I can't give a meaningful shorter answer than that.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 05:00 PM
Also, I think, like Jeff, that it's firebagger-level nonsense to say we haven't gotten much done over the past 18 months. I would say to him: Moonbat, please.

And then I would ask his reaction to this video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/barack-obama-netroots-nation-video_n_658193.html), particularly the part starting at around 1:10.

RM, FTW:

The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that.

(h/t: Some Hungover America- and Video-Poker-Hater (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_18_archive.html#5399299696880718588))

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 08:05 PM
And the fact that he's got the two most powerful members of Congress coming to visit, in person, ain't exactly chopped liver.

Speaking of which, it looks at this moment from searching on the hashtag #nn10 (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23nn10) that Harry Reid killed at Netroots Nation 2010.

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 11:10 AM
Speaking of which, it looks at this moment from searching on the hashtag #nn10 (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23nn10) that Harry Reid killed at Netroots Nation 2010.

On a related note, it looks like Sen. Al Franken also rocked the house (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%40alfranken).

Examples from some of the people I follow, seen before I thought to do the above search (some are RT, via the very helpful @sonjablair (http://twitter.com/sonjablair)).

RyanNewYork (http://twitter.com/RyanNewYork/status/19468361380):

Thanks to @AlFranken for a wonderful closing speech to #NN10 and for being a champion for Net Neutrality! #P2 #Tech

AdamSerwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/19467936809):

who would have thought that sen. @alfranken would have become one of the biggest champions of progressive legal philosophy?

Emperor_Bob (http://twitter.com/Emperor_Bob/status/19467951326):

RT @ddayen: Franken: Your rights are disappearing one 5-4 Supreme Court decision at a time #nn10

wonkroom (http://twitter.com/wonkroom/status/19467520625):

RT @newleftmedia: Al Franken: Republicans talk about deficits as if deficits appeared, all-the-sudden, at noon January 20, 2009.

elonjames (http://twitter.com/elonjames/status/19466816203):

“@brownboyrocks: 'No matter how frustrated you are don't stop now.' - @AlFranken #nn10”