Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Team of Blogging Rivals (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2384)

Bloggingheads 11-25-2008 08:52 AM

Team of Blogging Rivals
 

ginger baker 11-25-2008 10:27 AM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
has yglesias also been duped? say it aint' so! Matt AND Ross, brush up on your "progressive" history! Daschle a progressive??? huh? The DEms will have nearly 60 Senators! And Matt's already talking the realpolischtick of "compromise!"

C'mon, man! We'll have a so called "left-right" country governed by a center-right state with the restoration of the "New Democrat" Clinton administration. How odd that Obama campaigned against Hillary via the mantra of "Change." Yet Matt makes excuses. Aside from the foreign policy hawks amongst the incoming.... just look at the FAILED deregulatory policies of summers, rubin, volker, and co.

Obama could have summoned stieglitz, could have have gone to krugman, reich, and many others.....but nooo...he is no "progressive".

keep it up guys, temporal parochialism all the way!

harkin 11-25-2008 01:29 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Would much prefer Obama going to R J Samuelson and Peter Schiff but that aint gonna happen.

Two supplemental readings not listed here:

On Hillary at State, how that is a complete mockery of change you can believe in.

and

The WSJ on Christina Romer

and

A halfway complimentary article by Rich Lowery on Obama's post-election shape-shifting.

bjkeefe 11-25-2008 01:37 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 98100)
Would much prefer Obama going to R J Samuelson and Peter Schiff but that aint gonna happen.

Two supplemental readings not listed here:

On Hillary at State, how that is a complete mockery of change you can believe in.

and

The WSJ on Christina Romer

and

A halfway complimentary article by Rich Lowery on Obama's post-election shape-shifting.

Shorter harkin:

Quote:

Three is the new two. And have I explained my economic ideas lately?

otto 11-25-2008 02:34 PM

Matt's Beard
 
The Beard is Back.
Compare with http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13373
That is all.

sp3akthetruth 11-25-2008 03:46 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
I as usual really enjoyed Ross, but I was surprised how well Matt did. His mind moves faster than his mouth and he stutters to catch up.

But today he was the lucid one and Ross was the one wondering.

As ginger baker's comment, when he comes to health care reform, Daschle might as well be Kucinich. The ideas he's put out for health care would never be uttered by most Dems and would never be heard from a Republican.

I, personally, am in favor of a mixed form of socialized and private health care, and for the United States to get there it will take people like Daschle to get us there.

bkjazfan 11-25-2008 05:53 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
It seems that the president elect Barack Obama is more measured than when he was on the campaign. The "tax the rich bravado" is gone. Today in his news conference he talked getting rid of programs that don't work and are kept alive for various political reasons. A little Reaganesque.

The hard left of the Democratic party which probably comprises 20% of their electorate have to be disappointed in Obama's recent centrist ideology. For the time being with this ominous financial debacle facing the country the only promise that Obama will deliver on is closing Gitmo and who knows when that will occur. I think he is a work in progress as evidenced by his numerous flip flops during the campaign and his current moderate positions.

I look forward to watching President Obama's ideological evolution.

John

TwinSwords 11-25-2008 05:55 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Oh, cool, the return of Matt. Long time no see, Mr. Non-Partisan.

Also good to see Mr. Douthat's return.

Wonderment 11-25-2008 07:20 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

The hard left of the Democratic party which probably comprises 20% of their electorate have to be disappointed in Obama's recent centrist ideology.
Obama pivoted to the center the minute he secured the nomination. Now he is entering phase 2 of centrist alignment with a cabinet devoid of progressives and replete with supporters of the Iraq War.

But it's way to early to tell how he will actually govern.

He may just be another Bill Clinton after all. I'm hoping, however, that he's better than that.

Obama will undo the worst of Bush "war on terror" abuses, save the Supreme Court from the Scalia mob, reform healthcare, address global warming and end the war in Iraq. That's a win!!

claymisher 11-25-2008 08:16 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 98119)
Obama pivoted to the center the minute he secured the nomination. Now he is entering phase 2 of centrist alignment with a cabinet devoid of progressives and replete with supporters of the Iraq War.

I hear that a lot, and I think a lot of people expected it, but I don't think he pivoted at all. There's not that much difference between his February speeches and his October speeches. His campaign dialed down the energy in June/July, but that was about building up to a big climax for the finale. And he never backed down on raising taxes on income over $250,000. You heard more about that in the general than in the primary.

Quote:

But it's way to early to tell how he will actually govern.

He may just be another Bill Clinton after all. I'm hoping, however, that he's better than that.

Obama will undo the worst of Bush "war on terror" abuses, save the Supreme Court from the Scalia mob, reform healthcare, address global warming and end the war in Iraq. That's a win!!
Sounds liberal to me! Good thing, too.

bkjazfan 11-25-2008 08:36 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Wonderment,

Obama spent the entire first year of his presidential campaign running against the war in Iraq. Now, he is retaining Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who was for the surge. As far as reforming healthcare let's wait and see on that.

John

Tara Davis 11-25-2008 09:32 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 98119)
Obama will undo the worst of Bush "war on terror" abuses, save the Supreme Court from the Scalia mob, reform healthcare, address global warming and end the war in Iraq. That's a win!!

Only two justices expected to leave during the Obama administration, both liberals. The best-case scenario for liberals is that the Supreme Court will remain a 5-4 conservative body, unless one of the young conservative justices manage to die of an unexpected heart attack or something.

Obama might "reform" health care, but given the abysmal state of the national debt thanks to the bail-out, there's no way in hell he will do anything close to 1992-style "Hillarycare" socialized medicine. From the liberal perspective, best case is some pharma price controls a slight expansion of SCHIP, and perhaps, in your wildest dreams, some kind of national solution resembling MinnesotaCare.

Global Warming will (as it did under Clinton) mostly cease to be a discussed problem. Like homelessness, it's something that only "happens" when Republicans are in charge.

I don't know if you've been reading section B of your newspaper for the last few months or just looking at the election coverage, but the Iraq War has been winding down already. It was likely to end during the next administration regardless of who succeeded Bush.

So, apart from keeping that nut-burger Senator McCain out of office and the symbolic importance of electing our First Black President, what exactly has been "won"?

bkjazfan 11-25-2008 10:03 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Included is the new president's support of the ongoing bailout mania. A big mistake. Granted, he's becoming the chief executive of a country that resembles an economic "Titanic" but this is where the "change" aspect of his campaign should be put into action.

William Grieder today gives a cogent analysis about the economic situation in "Nation" magazine and Jim Rogers can be found on you tube speaking to it.

John

Wonderment 11-25-2008 10:32 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

So, apart from keeping that nut-burger Senator McCain out of office and the symbolic importance of electing our First Black President, what exactly has been "won"?
Those are enormous achievements.

Just the relief of ending 8 years of abominable Republican rule made me ecstatic.

harkin 11-25-2008 10:34 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 98102)
Shorter harkin:

lol @ attacking forgetting to edit a number.

One wonders how mercilessly you ridiculed Obama over '57 states'.

Nothing on the shape-shifter, the corruption about to take over State, the Fannie and Freddie enablers taking over the store? The differing ecomomic appointees? How very weak.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment
Obama pivoted to the center the minute he secured the nomination. Now he is entering phase 2 of centrist alignment with a cabinet devoid of progressives and replete with supporters of the Iraq War.

But it's way to early to tell how he will actually govern.

Oh my goodness, you misspelled......whoops, wait, I'm not BJK.

Thanks for introducing substance where others are unable to do so.

As I said before the election, one of the reasons I couldn't vote for Obama was because I had no idea who he was (nor could I vote for McCain but for different reasons). I still have no idea although I'm more certain than ever that he's more about Obama than he is about any empty 'change you can believe in' slogans used to sway a gullible electorate. Remember, this is the guy who wiped his website clean of all references to his stance that the surge was a failure once it looked like he was very wrong. This is also the guy who excused Rev Wright for everything up until he had the audacity to criticize Obama.

As you say, time will tell. At least the humor element of watching the far left going ape over the exact same duplicity they ignored or excused during the campaign is very rich.

Note* You were one of the few who actually was calling him out for his shifts as far back as last summer and that is commendable. As I recall you were criticized by some who these days are looking very foolish.

Simon Willard 11-25-2008 11:02 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
That's well said, Tara. I completely agree.

On the Global Warming front, you can make an argument similar to your health care prediction: there are ways for Obama to create the illusion of being "green", by taking a few timid and symbolic steps, encourage some wind farms or something. These steps will have no significant effect on the fact of global warming, but they will shield him from most of the criticism that has been thrown at Bush.

bkjazfan 11-25-2008 11:31 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Barack Obama went squishy on the Iraq war when he was questioned about the efficacy of the surge. Now, with announcment of Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense he has done a 180.

John

Markos 11-26-2008 02:37 AM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
I don't know what campaign you guys were watching during the Democratic primaries, but I think you're both really missing the reality of what took place.
Hillary and Obama are basically in agreement on most of the big issues. But primary campaigns are necessary but ridiculous situations where candidates who basically agree with each other HAVE TO find ways to pretend that electing their opponent will be a poor choice, if not a terrible and dangerous choice. So they stir up anything they can, such as the silly subtlety that was the beginning of Hillary's downfall: her having said in answer to a reporter's question that she thought Governor Spitzer's proposal for a third-tier limited driver's license for undocumented aliens "made sense." She said that in order to avoid having NYC tabloid headlines saying "Hillary Attacks Spitzer", the Dem governor of her home state. But Barack joined in with the rest of the hypocrite Democrats (Edwards, Dodd) to paint the up-till-then-invincible Hillary as a typical Clinton, trying to play both sides of the fence. And Russert and Brian Williams joined in on that and buried the fact that Hillary was very cogent on that issue. And that was the beginning of Hillary's downhill slide.
And when Hillary attacked Obama on his answer about being willing to talk to Iran's president without preconditions, that was all about campaign tactics. He gave her an opening and she attacked. But that was not some sort of big disagreement between them on policy or philosophy. That was just another example of the necessary silliness that is inherent to a primary campaign between two candidates who agree on most issues except for one: who the nominee of their party should be.
I really doubt that Obama and Hillary are going to have any unusual amount of disagreement on most issues of foreign policy.
I also think that if Obama had been in the Senate when that Iraq war vote was taken and he had to consider - as Hillary, Kerry and Edwards did, that a vote against backing up Bush on his standoff with Saddam could very likely disqualify him from viability as a presidential candidate, he might have made a different choice. Because it was Al Gore's vote for the first Gulf War that made him a leading contender for the White House in 1992, before he decided not to run, and also (among other reasons) made him a strong choice for VP.
I don't believe that tensions between Hillary and Obama during the primaries were about policy. They were about two people fighting for a job that only one person at a time can have.

Markos 11-26-2008 02:45 AM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
P.S. to previous comment: I am not saying that Al Gore's vote for the first Gulf War was the essential thing that made him a hot presidential contender in 1992 and for the future. I am saying that if he'd voted against the first Gulf War, he probably would have seriously and maybe irreparably damaged his viability as a presidential candidate for 1992 or 1996 and maybe for good.
And that first Gulf War vote was a key reference point for Democratic presidential hopefuls when the 2002 Iraq War vote was cast.

MikeDrew 11-26-2008 03:40 AM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Ross:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/160...6:37&out=36:49

Does "The era of Big Government is over!" count?

handle 11-26-2008 06:39 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 98126)

Nothing on the shape-shifter, the corruption about to take over State, the Fannie and Freddie enablers taking over the store? The differing ecomomic appointees? How very weak.

Anyone who's still buying the Palinesque "Fanny and Freddy, blame the liberals" meme should get a load of this.

Here is but a taste:

But he couldn’t figure out exactly how the rating agencies justified turning BBB loans into AAA-rated bonds. “I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.

harkin 11-26-2008 10:44 PM

Re: Team of Blogging Rivals
 
Quote:

Anyone who's still buying the Palinesque "Fanny and Freddy, blame the liberals" meme should get a load of this.
A short article with little facts and nothing but 'blame the rich' and bemoaning a lack of youth wanting to 'overturn their parent's world'???? LOL @ revolutionary chic gobbledeegook. The main reason for the meltdown is that the government encouraged loaning money with no sound collateral. Greed has and always will be a part of Wall Street.

The reason the meltdown is so much worse than just brokers and managers being rewarded for failure is because the US Government was willing to underwite the cr*p sandwich when no one else would.

Try this:

Washington Post - Blaming Deregulation

or this


"losses for the financial system from the subprime disaster are now estimated to be as high as $250 to $300 billion. But the financial losses will not be only in subprime mortgages and the related RMBS and CDOs. They are now spreading to near prime and prime mortgages as the same reckless lending practices in subprime (no down-payment, no verification of income, jobs and assets (i.e. NINJA or LIAR loans), interest rate only, negative amortization, teaser rates, etc.) were occurring across the entire spectrum of mortgages; about 60% of all mortgage origination since 2005 through 2007 had these reckless and toxic features."]Rising risk of a financial meltdown"

or this

Fannie and Freddie, a history of corruption


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.