Fear and Bargaining in DC (Robert Wright & Conn Carroll)

[Bloggingheads]

[graz]

Bob is adamant about Obama's lost opportunity to use the bully pulpit to tax the fat cats. Hey, just take it to the people. Disregard the senate and house. Just Nike! Mission accomplished.

[ginger baker]

Progressives, listen up! Conn Carroll has good news for you!
BOB, progressives may gripe and grumble now but in the end they'll eventually stop their complaining of Republican Obama, and get their sorry sad ass into gear to the voting booths to vote for him nevertheless. Dont count on them rallying up ordinary folk but....oh the horror, the horror. They were so clueless having Bush as the monster to bat around, and now that Obama is the MONSTER, they're worse than clueless.

[Wonderment]

Very roughly, how Obama lost my vote for 2012:

16.67% - Guantánamo broken promise

16.67% - Unprogressive and dysfunctional health care reform legislation

16.67% - Afghan escalation

16.67% - Israel-Palestinian policy

16.67% - Eloquent discourse trumping substantial achievement on a wide range of issues (eg., immigration)

16.67% - Libya

And (now for the kicking and screaming part) how Obama dragged me back and got my firm commitment to campaign my butt off and work the phones for him next year:

110% - Rick Perry

or

101% - All other viable GOP candidates

...and then there's always the other 100%, which is the prospect of a Republican president nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

[graz]

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

110% - Rick Perry

or

101% - All other viable GOP candidates

...and then there's always the other 100%, which is the prospect of a Republican president nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

Yeah. That.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

And (now for the kicking and screaming part) how Obama dragged me back and got my firm commitment to campaign my butt off and work the phones for him next year:

110% - Rick Perry

or

101% - All other viable GOP candidates

...and then there's always the other 100%, which is the prospect of a Republican president nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

Well, if you wonder why Conservative politicians listen to their grass roots and liberals don't, here's your answer. The Conservative base has, and will, sit out elections for unsatisfactory options. You guys on the left will vote for everyone from Clinton to Obama, no matter what they do. So why shouldn't they do what is necessary to continue their hold on power?

[Ocean]

Me too.

[Wonderment]

Me too.

No hay de otra

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

No hay de otra

Nada!

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

And (now for the kicking and screaming part) how Obama dragged me back and got my firm commitment to campaign my butt off and work the phones for him next year: 110% - Rick Perry or 101% - All other viable GOP candidates.

Wonderment informs us that liberals can be bought at any price, and seems almost proud of it. Does he realize that Obama uses these people as toilet paper? But that's ok,because Wonderment, who has apparently tasted both, assures us that Obama's shit tastes better than Perry's. This is so Weimar Republic, isn't it, this congenital inability of liberal elites to draw a red line, to take a stand, to inflict punishment on anyone. Obama oozes contempt for such liberals and there I am with him. Every culture can be trusted to produce its contingent of teaparty nutters. It's when the liberal elites surrender their agency (and dignity) that you know the country is done for. The ascendency of the tea party has as much to do with their own populist demagoguery as it does with the abject surrender of the liberal poodles. The people who will "work the phones" for Obama deserve the tea party. Hell, they created the tea party with their proven inability to challenge power -- any power -- and their uncanny willingness of sell out every principle at the altar of lesser-evilism. The idea of punishing someone "on your side" for betraying every fucking principle you hold is unthinkable to them because right behind the traitor there's someone epsilon worse! The problem when you accept the logic of this dynamic is that you'll always lose. If you never punish a politician for betraying you, you'll always be betrayed. And liberals wonder why everyone loathes them.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by ohreally

Wonderment informs us that liberals can be bought at any price, and seems almost proud of it. Does he realize that Obama uses these people as toilet paper? But that's ok,because Wonderment, who has apparently tasted both, assures us that Obama's shit tastes better than Perry's. This is so Weimar Republic, isn't it, this congenital inability of liberal elites to draw a red line, to take a stand, to inflict punishment on anyone. Obama oozes contempt for such liberals and there I am with him. Every culture can be trusted to produce its contingent of teaparty nutters. It's when the liberal elites surrender their agency (and dignity) that you know the country is done for. The ascendency of the tea party has as much to do with their own populist demagoguery as it does with the abject surrender of the liberal poodles. The people who will "work the phones" for Obama deserve the tea party. Hell, they created the tea party with their proven inability to challenge power -- any power -- and their uncanny willingness of sell out every principle at the altar of lesser-evilism. The idea of punishing someone "on your side" for betraying every fucking principle you hold is unthinkable to them because right behind the traitor there's someone epsilon worse! The problem when you accept the logic of this dynamic is that you'll always lose. If you never punish a politician for betraying you, you'll always be betrayed. And liberals wonder why everyone loathes them.

Nothing would please us on the right more then if these two things could happen every election cycle:

1. More liberals think like this---or take your advice.

2. Someone like Ralph Nader run in every election.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Nothing would please us on the right more then if these two things could happen every election cycle:

1. More liberals think like this---or take your advice.

2. Someone like Ralph Nader run in every election.

This is exactly right. (I speak as a Nader voter in 2000).

I don't really understand liberals thinking Obama "betrayed" them - he's a freaking politician. And I don't say that as an ad hominem attack on his character, I say it as an acknowledgement that politicians - especially presidential candidates - have to be a lot of things to a lot of people. There are a lot of liberals, centrists and independents (whatever the hell they are) who are much further to the right than the typical base.

When ohreally, et. al. express admiration for the Tea Party, they must consider that Republicans have become a much smaller tent, that a handful of representatives are much different than a national, or even senatorial, candidate, and that the opposition party is going to get way with a lot more. (see: Nader; see: results)

I was let down somewhat by Obama - I thought he would do more. But I also knew that political realities were going to push against him hard - I would like to have not been reminded of this so brutally! But he's a moderate. Those who thought of him as some kind of liberal firebrand were deluding themselves. He rode a wave of liberal unity (mostly about little more than opposition to Republicanism as expressed by Bush), not a wave of the liberal base.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by ohreally

Wonderment informs us that liberals can be bought at any price, and seems almost proud of it. Does he realize that Obama uses these people as toilet paper? But that's ok,because Wonderment, who has apparently tasted both, assures us that Obama's shit tastes better than Perry's. This is so Weimar Republic, isn't it, this congenital inability of liberal elites to draw a red line, to take a stand, to inflict punishment on anyone. Obama oozes contempt for such liberals and there I am with him. Every culture can be trusted to produce its contingent of teaparty nutters. It's when the liberal elites surrender their agency (and dignity) that you know the country is done for. The ascendency of the tea party has as much to do with their own populist demagoguery as it does with the abject surrender of the liberal poodles. The people who will "work the phones" for Obama deserve the tea party. Hell, they created the tea party with their proven inability to challenge power -- any power -- and their uncanny willingness of sell out every principle at the altar of lesser-evilism. The idea of punishing someone "on your side" for betraying every fucking principle you hold is unthinkable to them because right behind the traitor there's someone epsilon worse! The problem when you accept the logic of this dynamic is that you'll always lose. If you never punish a politician for betraying you, you'll always be betrayed. And liberals wonder why everyone loathes them.

Quite a rant, OhReally. I don't think I've ever been called a poodle, shit-eater, Nazi enabler, loathsome, congenitally defective, toilet paper and abject coward all in one otherwise uninteresting paragraph.

Who are you voting for, by the way?

Oops, as a "liberal elite" that should be "For whom are you voting?"

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Quite a rant, OhReally. I don't think I've ever been called a poodle, shit-eater, Nazi enabler, loathsome, congenitally defective, toilet paper and abject coward all in one otherwise uninteresting paragraph.

Who are you voting for, by the way?

Oops, as a "liberal elite" that should be "For whom are you voting?"

It looks like you've become the moderate, Wonderment.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by ohreally

Wonderment informs us that liberals can be bought at any price, and seems almost proud of it. Does he realize that Obama uses these people as toilet paper? But that's ok,because Wonderment, who has apparently tasted both, assures us that Obama's shit tastes better than Perry's. This is so Weimar Republic, isn't it, this congenital inability of liberal elites to draw a red line, to take a stand, to inflict punishment on anyone. Obama oozes contempt for such liberals and there I am with him. Every culture can be trusted to produce its contingent of teaparty nutters. It's when the liberal elites surrender their agency (and dignity) that you know the country is done for. The ascendency of the tea party has as much to do with their own populist demagoguery as it does with the abject surrender of the liberal poodles. The people who will "work the phones" for Obama deserve the tea party. Hell, they created the tea party with their proven inability to challenge power -- any power -- and their uncanny willingness of sell out every principle at the altar of lesser-evilism. The idea of punishing someone "on your side" for betraying every fucking principle you hold is unthinkable to them because right behind the traitor there's someone epsilon worse! The problem when you accept the logic of this dynamic is that you'll always lose. If you never punish a politician for betraying you, you'll always be betrayed. And liberals wonder why everyone loathes them.

No need to loath anyone here if you ask me.

The lesser evilism that you mention has always been the choice. I've never heard of anyone in this country who is such an example of perfection that everybody that votes for him/her will be 100% in agreement.

As voters we have to vote for real people, not an idealized fantasy of what we would like it to be. Obama may be far from that fantasy, but right now he's the only option. Bring an electable more liberal Dem and we'll talk again.

You ask about Perry. If you know anything at all, and I will assume you do, about liberals, you'll know that Perry represents just about the opposite of the most fundamental principles of liberalism. So why your surprise? Do you need to taste his shit to figure that out?

You're minimizing the real problem here, which isn't about whether Obama is liberal enough or not. The problem resides in the extreme movement to the right of the Republican Party. That Tea Party that you mention doesn't have any internal consistency that would justify your claims. It's the voice of a manipulated group. It'll die because it has no direction, no substance.

So you want to punish your less than perfect Democrat, by, what? Letting a Michelle Bachmann be elected? Is that your great idea for today?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Ocean

You ask about Perry. If you know anything at all, and I will assume you do, about liberals, you'll know that Perry represents just about the opposite of the most fundamental principles of liberalism. So why your surprise? Do you need to taste his shit to figure that out?

But that's the rub. Conservatives knew that Obama was going to be the most left wing President since atleast LBJ. That wasn't sufficient to motivate them to vote for McCain en masse, because McCain is a squish. And they were not pleased with the domestic spending of the Bush administration.

So Conservatives let McCain dangle. And their reward? Now they own the party; the party learned how much it needed them.

Now, to be fair, liberals completely own the Democrat party. But it's the liberal elites, not the grass roots. Partially thats because actual liberal voters are a much smaller number of people than Conservatives, but its also because liberals dutifully show up to the polls no matter what happens and vote for the Democrat.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Now, to be fair, liberals completely own the Democrat party. But it's the liberal elites, not the grass roots. Partially thats because actual liberal voters are a much smaller number of people than Conservatives, but its also because liberals dutifully show up to the polls no matter what happens and vote for the Democrat.

You keep using that word, "liberal." I do not think it means what you think it means. Also, don't be an ass. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

You keep using that word, "liberal." I do not think it means what you think it means. Also, don't be an ass. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Well, remember, the "left" is explained with the following:

...the Left cannot tolerate the slightest deviation from the script. Even as the budgets of bloated entitlement societies bring the building down around us, even as the vanguard of Jihad slaughter the citizenry, even as the culture erodes and relativism rules, even the slightest complaint is met with screams of "Nazi!"

Given that, there's no telling what "liberals" are supposed to be.

[Don Zeko]

I never knew I was such a serious threat to America. I'm going to go home and rethink my life. Sulla, Kang, Apple, can you guys tell me what else I believe so that I only have to go through this process once?

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by ohreally

Wonderment informs us that liberals can be bought at any price, and seems almost proud of it. Does he realize that Obama uses these people as toilet paper? But that's ok,because Wonderment, who has apparently tasted both, assures us that Obama's shit tastes better than Perry's. This is so Weimar Republic, isn't it, this congenital inability of liberal elites to draw a red line, to take a stand, to inflict punishment on anyone. Obama oozes contempt for such liberals and there I am with him. Every culture can be trusted to produce its contingent of teaparty nutters. It's when the liberal elites surrender their agency (and dignity) that you know the country is done for. The ascendency of the tea party has as much to do with their own populist demagoguery as it does with the abject surrender of the liberal poodles. The people who will "work the phones" for Obama deserve the tea party. Hell, they created the tea party with their proven inability to challenge power -- any power -- and their uncanny willingness of sell out every principle at the altar of lesser-evilism. The idea of punishing someone "on your side" for betraying every fucking principle you hold is unthinkable to them because right behind the traitor there's someone epsilon worse! The problem when you accept the logic of this dynamic is that you'll always lose. If you never punish a politician for betraying you, you'll always be betrayed. And liberals wonder why everyone loathes them.

It's really amazing to compare this kind of thing with the ranting about Obama at some of the rightwing sites. (Hint, he's not a liberal, but a Marxist, and he hates America. And those are the nicest bits.) We have a really crazy disconnect from the people who think Obama is the most rightwing president ever and those who think he's to the left of Eugene Debs, between the people who think he's an insane jingoistic torturing fan of war for Corporate America and those who think he's trying to build up our enemies -- and duck out of all wars and foreign commitments but those to international law, of course -- because he secrets sympathizes with the third world vs. the US.

I think both of these takes are pretty crazy and out of touch with reality, but the strangest bit is that they can so easily make common cause. Because fundamentally the most important thing to both is that Obama is Evil and Must Be Defeated. Sure, you'd think the points of views wouldn't allow for much agreement, but on the one hand, if Obama is so bad, why worry about Rick Perry. After all, he's basically just a more honest Obama. And on the other hand, yeah, the leftwinger may be seen as nutty, but he certainly isn't as extreme as Obama (even if he's a little misguided there, shhh, don't let on) and it's certainly good if people don't vote for Obama. Let's focus on the principles and how Obama has clearly sold his out, since that liberal agenda (socialist! as it was with the stimulus and health care reform) clearly didn't truly reflect Obama's Stalinist values.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

It's really amazing to compare this kind of thing with the ranting about Obama at some of the rightwing sites. (Hint, he's not a liberal, but a Marxist, and he hates America. And those are the nicest bits.) We have a really crazy disconnect from the people who think Obama is the most rightwing president ever and those who think he's to the left of Eugene Debs, between the people who think he's an insane jingoistic torturing fan of war for Corporate America and those who think he's trying to build up our enemies -- and duck out of all wars and foreign commitments but those to international law, of course -- because he secrets sympathizes with the third world vs. the US.

People read too much pulp fiction. We live in hollywoodland where there are evil triple agents behind every pillar in Washington.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

It's really amazing to compare this kind of thing with the ranting about Obama at some of the rightwing sites. (Hint, he's not a liberal, but a Marxist, and he hates America. And those are the nicest bits.) We have a really crazy disconnect from the people who think Obama is the most rightwing president ever and those who think he's to the left of Eugene Debs, between the people who think he's an insane jingoistic torturing fan of war for Corporate America and those who think he's trying to build up our enemies -- and duck out of all wars and foreign commitments but those to international law, of course -- because he secrets sympathizes with the third world vs. the US.

I can't speak for anyone who considers Obama to be a right winger (That seems pretty crazy), but I used to consider Obama to be pushing social democracy on the American people. Now I just think he's unprepared for the job.

Now, I wasn't crazy when I thought he was a social Democrat. If you take what he actually said before 2007 as a sincere statement of political beliefs, and you accept that he actually has a thin record of positions, you have to evaluate based on what you see and ask why you're being shown so little. Then you examine the milieu he appears from onto the national stage. His district was very far left, and he attended a HIGHLY political church which anyone could consider extreme.

Originally I thought he did these things, and said things like he favored single payer, because he believed them. Now I think that it was his easiest road to power.

[harkin]

How can Bob say that Obama is a bad negotiator? He does not negotiate at all, he misdirects, stalls and lies. He kicked the can down the road for two and a half years so he wouldn't have to deal with the deficit. Then he demonized republicans and got another delay till after the 2012 election.

He also got his party to bribe their way to passage of a horrific government takeover of the health care system. He now has permission to use unspent stimulus money to get out the vote next Nov. You can say he's a pure politiican, demagogue and a bald-faced liar aided and abetted by a compliant press but he's very good at it.

[graz]

Originally Posted by harkin

How can Bob say that Obama is a bad negotiator? He does not negotiate at all, he misdirects, stalls and lies. He kicked the can down the road for two and a half years so he wouldn't have to deal with the deficit. Then he demonized republicans and got another delay till after the 2012 election.

He also got his party to bribe their way to passage of a horrific government takeover of the health care system. He now has permission to use unspent stimulus money to get out the vote next Nov. You can say he's a pure politiican, demagogue and a bald-faced liar aided and abetted by a compliant press but he's very good at it.

Yeah Bob. And another thing, what makes you think he really wants to tax fat cats? He's only paid mild lip service to the idea. He welcomes your scorn, or any coming from his left. It gives him cred on the only street that matters ... Wall st.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

He kicked the can down the road for two and a half years so he wouldn't have to deal with the deficit.

Is that the same road that has the ditch that the Republicans drove the car into which then the president had to dig out and which made him say that the Republicans couldn't have the keys because they didn't help and would have to sit in the back seat?

[harkin]

Wonderment makes a great point.

Liberals will whine and moan but in the end they don't care about Obama's lies or lack of principals. Ideology, socialist supreme court justices and any move towards the nanny state are what matter.

[graz]

Originally Posted by harkin

Wonderment makes a great point.

Liberals will whine and moan but in the end they don't care about Obama's lies or lack of principals. Ideology, socialist supreme court justices and any move towards the nanny state are what matter.

That's O'bummer to you pal.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by harkin

Liberals will whine and moan but in the end they don't care about Obama's lies or lack of principals. Ideology, socialist supreme court justices and any move towards the nanny state are what matter.

That's why so many Republicans who have *always* opposed the deficit and fiscal profligacy voted for Bush, the guy they now claim was never a *real* conservative. Right?

It couldn't possibly be that people make pragmatic decisions about their best available options and vote accordingly or anything like that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

That's why so many Republicans who have *always* opposed the deficit and fiscal profligacy voted for Bush, the guy they now claim was never a *real* conservative. Right?

It couldn't possibly be that people make pragmatic decisions about their best available options and vote accordingly or anything like that.

Harkin seems to be saying that it's bad to vote based on your principles (ideology). He tries to muddle this by yelling Socialist!, of course. But it's bad to vote for Obama, because Obama lacks principles, by which it seems he means that Obama's policies views are different rom his own or perhaps Wonderment's. But if Wonderment should vote on principle, why should he not take the closeness of Obama's to his own vs. those of Rick Perry? Weird.

Or is this another "he stands on principle and that's good, the principles themselves are not important, because he stands on them!" argument, like we used to get about Bush back before Bush was just another liberal socialist?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Harkin seems to be saying that it's bad to vote based on your principles (ideology). He tries to muddle this by yelling Socialist!, of course. But it's bad to vote for Obama, because Obama lacks principles, by which it seems he means that Obama's policies views are different rom his own or perhaps Wonderment's. But if Wonderment should vote on principle, why should he not take the closeness of Obama's to his own vs. those of Rick Perry? Weird.

How would one muddle saying that it's bad to vote based on your principles by yelling 'Socialist!'? The rest of your post is similiarly mysterious. You seem to be saying that harkin thinks it's bad to vote for Obama because he lacks principles, but surely you know that any principles Obama would uphold would be the very reason harkin would say not to vote for him. I know it's hard to understand this stuff so let's just boil the thing down, shall we?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

That's why so many Republicans who have *always* opposed the deficit and fiscal profligacy voted for Bush, the guy they now claim was never a *real* conservative. Right?

It couldn't possibly be that people make pragmatic decisions about their best available options and vote accordingly or anything like that.

I think that the awareness of debt and deficit is actually pretty recent (in geologic time ). I think now that people have been made aware of the issue things will be changing. The era of big government may be officially over.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The era of big government may be officially over.

That seems a tad optimistic.

I'd like to see Conn Carroll more often. I think he has really good chemistry with people who do number crunching. I vote for Annie Lowrey. It'd be nice to have a bi-monthly program of some sort with an uber clever name like "E-Conn Thursday."

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

That seems a tad optimistic.

I'd like to see Conn Carroll more often. I think he has really good chemistry with people who do number crunching. I vote for Annie Lowrey. It'd be nice to have a bi-monthly program of some sort with an uber clever name like "E-Conn Thursday."

Well we know he likes Annie! and e-conn is very clever, indeed.

However, I don't see us returning to the let government do it days. I think people have definitely awakened. It started happening before Obama was elected. Nobody likes a big debt.

PS. Did Conn leave Heritage? I'd look myself but that would require effort.

[graz]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think people have definitely awakened.

Not if you're any indication ...

... I'd look myself but that would require effort.

Teatards unite.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by graz

Teatards unite.

teatards, cute. But really, you're just a piker.

We have negotiated with terrorists

They have acted like terrorists

what they’re saying is we’ll blow up the country if you don’t listen to us

This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich (my personal favorite)

It probably is – with some Satan fries on the side

What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

a small number of extremists to take the House of Representatives and the economy of the world as hostages

nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Tea Partiers are hyper-violent extremists

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

teatards, cute. But really, you're just a piker.

We have negotiated with terrorists

They have acted like terrorists

what they’re saying is we’ll blow up the country if you don’t listen to us

This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich (my personal favorite)

It probably is – with some Satan fries on the side

What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

a small number of extremists to take the House of Representatives and the economy of the world as hostages

nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Tea Partiers are hyper-violent extremists

Tea-partiers are puerile idiots.
That's as concise as possible.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Tea-partiers are puerile idiots.
That's as concise as possible.

really, really harsh, Jeff

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

really, really harsh, Jeff

It's exactly what I believe. There are people associated with the movement who that doesn't describe. They're simply cynics.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

It's exactly what I believe. There are people associated with the movement who that doesn't describe. They're simply cynics.

which cynic?


cyn·ic
   [sin-ik] Show IPA

–noun
1.
a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.

2.
( initial capital letter ) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.

3.
a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.
.