Values Added: Grassroots Politics (Michelle Goldberg & Rich Lowry)

[Bloggingheads]

[harkin]

Looking forward to Michelle applying the same leap she's willing to use for colonialism to the effect of public unions as a small minority bankrupts entire cities, counties and states as they exert their power.

Havent read much on Oakland but seeing how the Day Of Rage/OWS idiots occupy, dig in like ticks, don't follow rules regarding permits, sleeping in public, camping, leave it to taxpayers to pay for extra police needs, cleanup, complaints, crime etc, can you blame a cash-strapped city from seeking to nip it in the bud? Let them howl in ignorance for part of a day and then get back to the lives they apprently don't have.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Havent read much on Oakland but seeing how the Day Of Rage/OWS idiots occupy, dig in like ticks, don't follow rules regarding permits, sleeping in public, camping, leave it to taxpayers to pay for extra police needs, cleanup, complaints, crime etc, can you blame a cash-strapped city from seeking to nip it in the bud? Let them howl in ignorance for part of a day and then get back to the lives they apprently don't have.

So Ed Shultz was in quite a quandary this evening. He was aghast at the violence perpetrated against the peaceful protestors by the cops. But he really can't say anything against the cops because he's in love with public employees. Such a dilemma!

He'll find a way to blame the Republicans.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by harkin

Looking forward to Michelle applying the same leap she's willing to use for colonialism to the effect of public unions as a small minority bankrupts entire cities, counties and states as they exert their power.

How dare we pay public employees middle class wages! The nerve!

[Don Zeko]

It sounds like there might be a reason that people usually play by the rules.

[Sulla the Dictator]

When Michelle refers to Mitt Romney as the "Conservative alternative" to John McCain, she's seeing this through the lens of Republican elites in Washington and New York (I'm looking at you, NR) who pushed that in 2008. Those people are who she has in mind when she speaks of "Conservatives".

The reason Romney didn't actually get anywhere in 2008 is because he was considered a squish even then. It was only 4 years since his pro-choice stance as governor. McCain isn't much of a Conservative standard bearer, and maybe be a jerk, but he was an honest jerk. He was clear about where he deviated, and so could be more or less trusted on matters where he hadn't. Romney's only consistent interest seems to be in being President.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

When Michelle refers to Mitt Romney as the "Conservative alternative" to John McCain, she's seeing this through the lens of Republican elites in Washington and New York (I'm looking at you, NR) who pushed that in 2008. Those people are who she has in mind when she speaks of "Conservatives".

The reason Romney didn't actually get anywhere in 2008 is because he was considered a squish even then. It was only 4 years since his pro-choice stance as governor. McCain isn't much of a Conservative standard bearer, and maybe be a jerk, but he was an honest jerk. He was clear about where he deviated, and so could be more or less trusted on matters where he hadn't. Romney's only consistent interest seems to be in being President.

Ironically, I think that John McCain was about as bad as Romney when it comes to changing positions. He was basically an orthodox conservative in the 1990's, then he got really pissed off after the 2000 campaign and became an official moderate, bipartisan deal-maker. There was even serious discussion of him changing parties and ticketing up with John Kerry in 2004. And then he ran for President again and became an orthodox conservative.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Ironically, I think that John McCain was about as bad as Romney when it comes to changing positions. He was basically an orthodox conservative in the 1990's, then he got really pissed off after the 2000 campaign and became an official moderate, bipartisan deal-maker. There was even serious discussion of him changing parties and ticketing up with John Kerry in 2004. And then he ran for President again and became an orthodox conservative.

I think the difference was that even with that, the attribution people made about McCain was that his shifts in policy and allegiance were driven by something internal (I suspect pique), not just the cold calculation of where the political winds were blowing.

It's true that he happened to benefit from these shifts, but I think that's more a function of politics occasionally rewarding personal failings than any calculation on his part.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I think the difference was that even with that, the attribution people made about McCain was that his shifts in policy and allegiance were driven by something internal (I suspect pique), not just the cold calculation of where the political winds were blowing.

It's true that he happened to benefit from these shifts, but I think that's more a function of politics occasionally rewarding personal failings than any calculation on his part.

I know this runs against the way the most people like to cover the horse race, but I'd much rather have a nominee that agrees with me because of bloodless political calculations. That means I can predict the pol's behavior and keep him in line by threatening to bolt and support a primary challenger. If he thinks what I think because the right person spat in his coffee last week, who knows what he'll think four years from now?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I know this runs against the way the most people like to cover the horse race, but I'd much rather have a nominee that agrees with me because of bloodless political calculations. That means I can predict the pol's behavior and keep him in line by threatening to bolt and support a primary challenger. If he thinks what I think because the right person spat in his coffee last week, who knows what he'll think four years from now?

I am certainly not arguing that McCain was a good candidate, just that he wasn't the apparently soulless marketing bot that Romney appears to be.

;-)

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I am certainly not arguing that McCain was a good candidate, just that he wasn't the apparently soulless marketing bot that Romney appears to be.

;-)

I don't deny that Romney's a soulless marketing bot. I just wonder if maybe there's something to be said for that when the other options are unpalatable.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I don't deny that Romney's a soulless marketing bot. I just wonder if maybe there's something to be said for that when the other options are unpalatable.

The most unpalatable being four more years of Barack Obama.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I know this runs against the way the most people like to cover the horse race, but I'd much rather have a nominee that agrees with me because of bloodless political calculations. That means I can predict the pol's behavior and keep him in line by threatening to bolt and support a primary challenger. If he thinks what I think because the right person spat in his coffee last week, who knows what he'll think four years from now?

That applies in the reverse too. If bloodless political calculation was Obama's thing, he would have pulled Clinton after 1994 considering the last midterm. That's what I'm afraid Romney will do; bend after the slightest political headwind. It's depressing, but I have hopes that a genuine Conservative Congress can make him largely irrelevant.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Ironically, I think that John McCain was about as bad as Romney when it comes to changing positions. He was basically an orthodox conservative in the 1990's, then he got really pissed off after the 2000 campaign and became an official moderate, bipartisan deal-maker. There was even serious discussion of him changing parties and ticketing up with John Kerry in 2004. And then he ran for President again and became an orthodox conservative.

Oh I think his attitude after 2000 was out of pique, and it was a very moderate pose he adopted. But if you think about his big difference from the base, on immigration, he'd always been one of those "Pathway to citizenship" types. He didn't change on that; he just adopted the reasonable position that some sort of border enforcement was required if you're going to do amnesty. His support for the most minimal border security was the only significant change, not his amnesty views.

And look how that goes both ways. His loud, obnoxious moralizing about torture, for example, was a sop to the media for whom he was a darling. But all of those little irritating McCainisms disappeared after the media abandoned him in 2008, and now he is just as spiteful to the media and what it represents as he was to the GOP base after 2000.

He was a jerk. But he was at least a known quantity as a jerk. Romney will be Bush I without the guts, which is saying something. A man who is unwilling to take some hits on policy positions in theory is going to be unwilling to take some hits on putting policy into practice.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Ironically, I think that John McCain was about as bad as Romney when it comes to changing positions. He was basically an orthodox conservative in the 1990's, then he got really pissed off after the 2000 campaign and became an official moderate, bipartisan deal-maker. There was even serious discussion of him changing parties and ticketing up with John Kerry in 2004. And then he ran for President again and became an orthodox conservative.

Yeah, I agree with this. The difference between his changes and Romney's is that I think Romney is a political creature and policy-focused, but willing to do whatever he needs to be elected. McCain doesn't seem much interested in policy at all, so I think his views tend to be emotional or personality driven, with some general moral principles thrown in (although ones that I think drive his knee jerk reactions in ways that most conservatives would dislike). Thus, he seems to jerk from position to position based on his personal reaction to others and the like (liked Reagan, pissed at W, pissed at Obama, pals with Lieberman, so on). The moralistic thing came out in '08 when his reaction to the economic meltdown was to talk about greed and bad actors far more than the Dems did. (I think it's also related to campaign finance in light of his past experience with the Keating scandal and the smoking view, as well as some of the military knee jerk reactions like "we are all Georgians now.")

That doesn't mean that he's beyond politically calculated flips, however. He admitted he was doing that with immigration in the last primaries, and same with his move to the right in the face of a primary challenge in AZ.

I think this could mean that Romney is a safer choice for someone who wants a consistent conservative. You could never trust McCain not to change his mind or be somewhat erratic, whereas if you convince Romney that his political fortunes are tied to certain conservative positions, he'll maintain them. (This is also why liberals shouldn't assume Romney would be a much more moderate president than he will campaign. He'll do what is politically useful, and if he needs to keep the base happy, he will.) I know some conservatives were making that argument in '08, too.

Edit: kez is absolutely right, also, about the nature of the support in '08. Of course, a lot of that was somewhat tepid and he seems to have had a problem with at least some evangelicals, leading to the Huckabee boom and his inability to defeat a seriously flawed candidate like McCain.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The reason Romney didn't actually get anywhere in 2008 is because he was considered a squish even then. It was only 4 years since his pro-choice stance as governor. McCain isn't much of a Conservative standard bearer, and maybe be a jerk, but he was an honest jerk. He was clear about where he deviated, and so could be more or less trusted on matters where he hadn't. Romney's only consistent interest seems to be in being President.

It's so rare that we agree on something, I just felt the need to highlight where we do.

[kezboard]

When Michelle refers to Mitt Romney as the "Conservative alternative" to John McCain, she's seeing this through the lens of Republican elites in Washington and New York (I'm looking at you, NR) who pushed that in 2008. Those people are who she has in mind when she speaks of "Conservatives".

That isn't true. Romney was endorsed by almost everyone in conservative talk radio and by a fair number of people on the religious right, in addition to the National Review and business conservative types. I'm sure many of these endorsements were motivated by distrust for McCain, so this isn't really a stamp of conservative authenticity for Romney, but you could fairly describe Romney as the conservative alternative in 2008. Or at least the most plausible alternative to McCain for conservatives.

That said, I don't really remember any of the specifics about McCain's or Romney's plans in 2008 that would put one of them much further right than the other. But Romney definitely made a calculation to brand himself as a social conservative, which McCain didn't do. Also, a lot of the distrust for Romney comes from his support for a health care mandate, which wasn't poison to all good conservatives before Obama made it part of his health care plan in 2009, and it seems to me that Romney's weaknesses in 2008 had as much to do with him being creepy and unlikeable as they did with his flip-flopping. (But I could just be projecting, because Romney has always come off to me as distinctly creepy and unlikeable.)

[Don Zeko]

Oh, and despite how strongly I dislike Rich Lowry, he's absolutely right when he says that Occupy Wall Street needs to participate in electoral politics if they want to make a difference. I think that primarying Chuck Schumer would be a fantastic idea.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Oh, and despite how strongly I dislike Rich Lowry, he's absolutely right when he says that Occupy Wall Street needs to participate in electoral politics if they want to make a difference. I think that primarying Chuck Schumer would be a fantastic idea.

Not to mention Cuomo.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Oh, and despite how strongly I dislike Rich Lowry, he's absolutely right when he says that Occupy Wall Street needs to participate in electoral politics if they want to make a difference. I think that primarying Chuck Schumer would be a fantastic idea.

Seems like an important difference between OWS and other potentially comparable movements: wanting to alter the system versus wanting to tear the whole system down. Acting self-righteous and pretending to "buck the system" and refusing to participate may make you feel better about yourself, but it won't accomplish shit. And it's been pretty clear from the beginning this was the way it was going to be.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Oh, and despite how strongly I dislike Rich Lowry, he's absolutely right when he says that Occupy Wall Street needs to participate in electoral politics if they want to make a difference. I think that primarying Chuck Schumer would be a fantastic idea.

Here's an expansion of that idea:
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/10/pol...ect-catalysts/

[Romanized]

Here's a revealing lesson from the Herman Cain candidacy: the uncovering of hidden troves of left-wing racism. The scornful and dismissive language used by the left to describe Herman Cain is already earning suspicious looks from the acute race consciousness brigade.

There is already a popular view amongst this crowd that white liberal have abandoned Obama in a way they would have never done Clinton. This will only get more interesting with time.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Romanized

Here's a revealing lesson from the Herman Cain candidacy: the uncovering of hidden troves of left-wing racism. The scornful and dismissive language used by the left to describe Herman Cain is already earning suspicious looks from the acute race consciousness brigade.

There is already a popular view amongst this crowd that white liberal have abandoned Obama in a way they would have never done Clinton. This will only get more interesting with time.

Careful. I am sure sulla and sugarkang are going to be on you like white on rice for intimating that someone may be racist.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Careful. I am sure sulla and sugarkang are going to be on you like white on rice for intimating that someone may be racist.

Woah! Did someone say racism!?! Maybe Racistman will save us!

Originally Posted by Romanized

Here's a revealing lesson from the Herman Cain candidacy: the uncovering of hidden troves of left-wing racism. The scornful and dismissive language used by the left to describe Herman Cain is already earning suspicious looks from the acute race consciousness brigade.

Uhh, what left-wing racism?

[tom]

Originally Posted by Romanized

Here's a revealing lesson from the Herman Cain candidacy: the uncovering of hidden troves of left-wing racism. The scornful and dismissive language used by the left to describe Herman Cain is already earning suspicious looks from the acute race consciousness brigade.

Maybe I'm more out of touch with the left than I thought, but I have no idea what this refers to. Can you point me towards the most mainstream examples of this phenomenon?

Thanks.

[uncle ebeneezer]

And while you're at it Michelle, assume that the cow is a perfect sphere...

As Ayn Rand famously said "question your premise", Rich.

[Wonderment]

Shorter Rich: Poor people just want free stuff.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Shorter Rich: Poor people just want free stuff.

Seems to me that poor people who don't pay some types of taxes would likely vote to continue not to pay some types of taxes just like rich people/corporations do, or middle class people or ...

[db63]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Seems to me that poor people who don't pay some types of taxes would likely vote to continue not to pay some types of taxes just like rich people/corporations do, or middle class people or ...

yes, except poor people vote at much lower rates than those groups.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by db63

yes, except poor people vote at much lower rates than those groups.

True enough, so why would the conservatarians care ?? The "Lucky Ducky" poor seem to be so big a threat for the right/libertarian wing yet they really don't have much power at all. Seems like Class Warfare to me !!

[db63]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

True enough, so why would the conservatarians care ?? The "Lucky Ducky" poor seem to be so big a threat for the right/libertarian wing yet they really don't have much power at all. Seems like Class Warfare to me !!

i agree, it is intellectually dishonest.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

And while you're at it Michelle, assume that the cow is a perfect sphere...

As Ayn Rand famously said "question your premise", Rich.

LOL!

You have to love an argument based on theoreticals.

"I, do you, do you, do you not see why -- let's just say in theory -- a Republican gets a million dollars every time he pies a school teacher in the face. Apple, Cherry, Coconut cream. Pie, pie, pie. You wouldn't fear that such a person in our theoretical vacuum here would have an incentive to toss pies hither and yon?"

[osmium]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

And while you're at it Michelle, assume that the cow is a perfect sphere...

As Ayn Rand famously said "question your premise", Rich.

Hey I used to teach from this book man

[conncarroll]

I miss the raw sexual chemistry between Rich and Ann Marie Cox
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31888

[Peter Twieg]

Lowry does a quite-atrocious job of explaining the importance of feeling tax incidence: The person who doesn't really feel that he pays anything for marginal services which he may need isn't only going to support increasing those services, but he's going to support a broad array of services that aren't really necessary. This was one of the major arguments from liberals concerning post-9/11 defense spending: It was largely deficit spending and thus no one felt like they were paying for it, when in reality it was in fact extremely costly. And would it be shocking to learn that people who don't pay any taxes probably support all sorts of spending that don't directly impact their own welfare? People who pay income tax feel tax incidence much more than they don't... I'm not trying to justify the "53%" framing as the right one, but there is are serious problems concerning fiscal illusion that increase as the connections between "this is what you paid for and this is what you're getting for it" become more and more nebulous.

Some blogger recently - McArdle? - pointed out the ultimate irony that the withholding tax - an idea of Milton Friedman's that was supposed to reduce compliance costs - has probably created so much additional fiscal illusion that we may have been better off without it.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Peter Twieg

Some blogger recently - McArdle? - pointed out the ultimate irony that the withholding tax - an idea of Milton Friedman's that was supposed to reduce compliance costs -

It was KATHERINE MANGU-WARD

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/39385

I remembered this because I thought "Gee she ( and seemingly other conservatives/libertarian types ( yes I think with parenthesis )) don't like the costs of withheld taxes being somehow opaque (it's not of course ) to workers yet cry rivers when people want credit card companies to display the costs to consumers of minimum payments and the like. Forget about the obtuse language these companies use to hide fees and other fines etc which make the tax code look like painless in comparison for most people.

Originally Posted by Peter Twieg

has probably created so much additional fiscal illusion that we may have been better off without it.

Well Comrade what do you have against "fiscal illusions" anyway ? It's the basis of our modern consumer state. You got a problem with capitalism pal

[db63]

the whole structure of African economic colonialism was using local governments to make decisions that were decided upon by the colonial power, which is exactly what corporations do in foreign nations today. it is literally the exact same thing.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by db63

the whole structure of African economic colonialism was using local governments to make decisions that were decided upon by the colonial power, which is exactly what corporations do in foreign nations today. it is literally the exact same thing.

No, it is not literally the exact same thing. Read the wikipedia entry on the Belgian Congo and then get back to me on this one.

[db63]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

No, it is not literally the exact same thing. Read the wikipedia entry on the Belgian Congo and then get back to me on this one.

how about do a field in colonial history and then get back to me?

if not, read these (especially the first one)

Crawford Young. The African State in Historical Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

John Kelly Thornton. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

David Eltis. The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas. Cambridge, UK; New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by db63

the whole structure of African economic colonialism was using local governments to make decisions that were decided upon by the colonial power, which is exactly what corporations do in foreign nations today. it is literally the exact same thing.

If by "local governments" you mean the governor of a colony or a colonial office, then sure. If you mean the influence of a foreign power, then no.