Clinton's on the Roof

[Bloggingheads]

[Thus Spoke Elvis]

Mark Warner is running for the Senate seat of the retiring John Warner (no relation), and is expected to easily win. There's no way he would be the VP nominee.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis

Mark Warner is running for the Senate seat of the retiring John Warner (no relation), and is expected to easily win. There's no way he would be the VP nominee.

It would be amazing having two Democratic senators from Virginia.

While Jim Webb would be a fine VP choice, I think it would be a mistake to give up his senate seat and take a chance of handing it back to the Republicans. Same goes for Warner: If he can take that seat, he should. We can find a VP candidate somewhere else.

[Big Wayne]

Social Security is not going bankrupt. With very minor adjustments it will be viable forever. I'm not surprised Jane knows this. In this respect, she shows the value of the reality-based community: You just can't find people in the MSM who will plainly state the truth that Social Security will be economically viable for as long as we want it to be.

To make the case that Social Security is not viable long term, the right likes to lump Social Security together with Medicare and Medicade, the latter two of which are, in fact, facing a crisis. But Social Security itself is viable until 2053 and then can be made viable for eternity with small adjustments.

Jane is also right, incidentally, that the real motive for reform is the desire of investment bankers to get their hands on my retirement income. There are trillions of dollars at stake, ane Republicans would like nothing so much as to make a gift of it to their friends in the invementment industry. And of course, those bankers would be more than happy to return the favor by recycling some portion of the largess back into the Republican Party in the form of campaign contributions. So, instead of your retirement savings going towards your retirement, it will be expropirated to entrench Republican control of government.

The rest of Amanda's arguments against SS -- "it's my money, it's un-American, Democrats suck" -- can all be boiled down to her telling us that she is cool with widespread homelessness and poverty among the elderly, which we all know is the inevitable and expected result of the elimination of this program. Starving elderly is apparently an aspect of the 3rd world that conservatives are anxious to see here in America.

[bjkeefe]

Apropos of Amanda's anti-New Deal attitude ( "People should fend for themselves; the government shouldn't take care of them ..."), I had to laugh when she said why we can't leave Iraq: "What? You expect those people just to fend for themselves? We have to take care of them."

Overall, I was pretty amazed at how little Amanda's beliefs have to do with facts; e.g., the SS issue (not really going bankrupt), the earmarks issue (drop in the bucket, relatively speaking), "activist judges" in California (Republican-appointed, upholding existing law), McCain's not a conservative, etc.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Apropos of Amanda's anti-New Deal attitude ( "People should fend for themselves; the government shouldn't take care of them ..."), I had to laugh when she said why we can't leave Iraq: "What? You expect those people just to fend for themselves? We have to take care of them."

Excellent point. Plus, isn't it just amazingly patronizing how she acts like our victims need us to take care of them after we destroyed their country and unleashed holy hell throughout the land? There are hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, more deformed, and she reserves for us the special responsibility to take care of the ones who haven't been killed yet.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Overall, I was pretty amazed at how little Amanda's beliefs have to do with facts; e.g., the SS issue (not really going bankrupt), the earmarks issue (drop in the bucket, relatively speaking), "activist judges" in California (Republican-appointed, upholding existing law), McCain's not a conservative, etc.

Right. She apparently won some debate award at some point. I could see the skills on hand in this diavlog as she quickly slipped out of any confrontation with reality, suddenly changing the subject each time she was confronted with inconvenient facts, in a manner reminiscent of David Frum's masterful dodging when repeatedly forced to face reality by Rick Perlstein.

It's funny how the entire foundation of their argument can be blown apart, only to react with a brief, "uh, well" before changing the topic to something completely different. I wish they would stop at some point and just say, "Really? Is that true? Maybe I need to look at that again."

But then, they aren't conservative for no reason; it takes well-honed skills to remain oblivious to reality, and it is those skills we see showcased day after day on BhTV.

[bjkeefe]

Big Wayne:

... in a manner reminiscent of Eli Lake's masterful dodging ...

You mean David Frum? I don't remember Eli and Rick being paired off.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Big Wayne:



You mean David Frum? I don't remember Eli and Rick being paired off.

Yep, already caught that on the re-read after posting... But thanks for catching it. David Frum, Eli Lake. Actually pretty similar.

[Wonderment]

David Frum, Eli Lake. Actually pretty similar.

Frum: worse.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Frum: worse.

Yeah, I'm with Wonderment on this one. I often disagree with Eli, but his positions are well-thought out, at least here on BH.tv, and he sticks up for them rather than trying to duck out of them. I also salute him for having modified his views in certain areas.

Frum, by contrast, is more of hack. Just listened to him on KCRW's "Left, Right, and Center" from this past Friday. About the only thing I can say in his favor is that he wasn't quite as oily as the regular who he was filling in for: Tony Blankley.

BW: Sorry I jumped in to correct you too soon on the Lake/Frum thing.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Yeah, I'm with Wonderment on this one. I often disagree with Eli, but his positions are well-thought out, at least here on BH.tv, and he sticks up for them rather than trying to duck out of them. I also salute him for having modified his views in certain areas.

Yeah, you guys are right: I mean they are similar in some ways, particularly the neo-con advocacy. But I think the rest of the distinctions you draw are valid. Eli seems like a nice guy. It was cool that he gave you a shoutout in the last diavlog.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Big Wayne

...Amanda's arguments against SS -- "it's my money, it's un-American[]"

That struck me as one of the weakest things I've ever heard a diavlogger assert on BHTV. The "un-American" epithet is something true-believers trot out when they don't have any real arguments. Actually trying it out in a public discussion with somebody of Hamsher's quality is not exactly what I'd interpret as indication of particular depth of thought. I like to see Hamsher paired with partisans from the other side, but a stronger matchup than Carpenter must be available.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I like to see Hamsher paired with partisans from the other side, but a stronger matchup than Carpenter must be available.

Agreed. Carpenter's thought, especially on the Social Security issue, is a surreal quintessance of greed-head ego-centrism. She can talk, but there's no evidence she can think beyond the boundaries of her own wallet. Really sad. So childish.

Hamsher did a pretty decent job of taking Carpenter to school on "What it means to be an American" here. I would simply amend Jane's final words from "a separate opinion" to "a stupid, selfish, indefensible, shameless opinion." (There but for fortune ....)

Particularly liked Jane's: "We're not living in some barbaric Stone-Age movie!"

I think Carpenter should be sentenced to 1000 hours of community service doing "Meals on Wheels" for Social-Security shut-in retirees for being so clueless as to think and talk like that.

EW

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

Carpenter's thought, especially on the Social Security issue, is a surreal quintessance of greed-head ego-centrism.

At least she was honest about her motives, sneering that she was under no obligation to take care of "those people" until they die off. She ended the segment with a frank admission of her own heartlessness. This is a big improvement over the typical, dishonest conservative, who pretend their real motive is to improve the system.

I thought it was interesting that she tagged FDR as probably the worst president ever. It's interesting what presidents have to do to achieve that label on the left and the right. The left will tag you as the worst president ever if, like Bush, you shred the Constitution and slaughter countless souls overseas. The right will tag you as the worst president if provide the elderly with a small but important hedge against homelessness, starvation, and early death.

Another amusing comment she made was that Republicans lost the midterm elections because they weren't conservative enough. Yeah. Sure.

[JLF]

No one is Libertarian/Conservative if they lack advantages in the system. No one without inherited wealth or a skill that produces wealth would think fair a system that keeps him at or near minimum wage while his work product produces multiples of wealth for another. Ann Richards nailed it for all Libertarian/Conservatives when she accused George H.W. Bush of being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple.

[Big Wayne]

Amanada wanted to make sure we knew she was not a member of the reality-based community. She frankly stated, "I don't know California law, I'm just telling you how it's going to play."

I appreciate the honesty.

"How it's going to play," Amanda assures us (rightly), will be to call the judges "activist" and say the author of the opinion was a "bad judge."

How does she know he's a bad judge if she doesn't know California law?

Simple: By the result of the decision. Good judges reach decisions that conservatives agree with; bad judges do not. The law itself, Amanda has just informed us, is actually irrelevant.

She certainly has cut through a lot of complex legal issues! Hell, we probably don't need all those old law books if it's really this simple. Judgifying is easier than it looks!

Amanda speaks with the confidence of someone who knows that other conservatives will do the heavy lifting for her; that she'll find someone who she can link to who explains why the judges were bad activists.

This wipes out all of the usual conservative pretense about "original intent" and "strict interpretation," and makes it explicit that conservatives are not interesting in judicial process or philosophy, but results. And with admirable honestly, she assures us that you can condemn a decision without even knowing the law behind it.

To be fair, it's not just conservatives who do this. People on both sides imagine that the Constitution (of the state or nation) is a magical document ensuring All Good Things, if only properly interpreted.

[Wonderment]

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud to be a Californian

Now we'll have to see if Obama can deliver on changing federal law, especially where gay and lesbian spouses are discriminated against in Green Card and citizenship eligibility.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud to be a Californian

Better watch the flamethrower talk! Else you'll be hearing from cragger.

[cragger]

Hush, you'll ruin it. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

[harkin]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud to be a Californian.

Ha - Michelle Obama-style self-absorption & shallowness has reached BHs!

Too bad California didn't bomb Ft Lee and the Pentagon during Viet Nam, Wment could have been proud long ago.

[bjkeefe]

Further evidence that right-wingers have no sense of humor:

Originally Posted by harkin

Ha - Michelle Obama-style self-absorption & shallowness has reached BHs!

[harkin]

I guess this is the first time I've seen anyone cite a laugh as evidence of a lack of humor.

Was I supposed to laugh when Wonderment thanked the Weather Underground for bombing in the US (he never acknowledged my citing other WU members for saying the bombings and violence actually hurt the anti-war movement)? I guess all that mattered was that Bob swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Heck, I never catch any of those sophisticated jokes.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by harkin

I guess this is the first time I've seen anyone cite a laugh as evidence of a lack of humor.

You didn't laugh, except with delight, when you happened upon a point you thought you could use as an excuse to repeat an attack talking point.

[Wonderment]

Was I supposed to laugh when Wonderment thanked the Weather Underground for bombing in the US ...

I didn't thank the Weather Underground for bombing anything. I oppose bombs, whoever throws or drops them.

I thanked Bill Ayers for his service to our country as a NONVIOLENT antiwar activist who opposed the atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Please refrain from making up stories about me.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Please refrain from making up stories about me.

Calling yourself a pacifist as you celebrate an organization bent on violent overthrow didn't float then and it doesnt now.

As I recall you thanked the Weather Underground for helping end the Viet Nam war. Any thinking person would agree that the Weather Underground's biggest influence was in its acts of violence. You ignored my quotes from fellow WU members saying the violence had the opposite effect, which in effect means you actually should condemn Ayers for in reality hurting the movement you claim to have supported.

And you also said

Originally Posted by Wonderment

......there is a case to be made that taking up arms against such a regime [US] is justified.

I'll let the matter stand. Ayers was a terrorist and the fact that his level of violence never reached Osama Bin Laden's takes nothing away from his despicable acts. I'm assuming it was only his WU colleagues being blown to bits that finally had him begin to realize the consequences of his incredibly stupid acts....Although with his stomping on the flag as recently as last year and his plan to turn US schoolchildren into little Che Guevaras.....he has a long way to go.

[David Thomson]

Many conservatives have been conditioned to believe that any charming "man of color" is simply another innocuous Sidney Poitier. Thankfully, a number of these naive folks are waking up to the harsh reality that Barack "Barry" Obama is a very dangerous man. He is truly a man of the left possessing an agenda to weaken our national defenses and turn our economy into a socialist "paradise." Obama also appears to want the United States to follow the dictates of the so-called international order. John McCain may leave something to be desired---but he is, by far, the lesser of evils. We are going to have to hold our noses and make sure he is elected our next Commander-in-Chief.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by David Thomson

Many conservatives have been conditioned to believe that any charming "man of color" is simply another innocuous Sidney Poitier. Thankfully, a number of these naive folks are waking up to the harsh reality that Barack "Barry" Obama is a very dangerous man. He is truly a man of the left possessing an agenda to weaken our national defenses and turn our economy into a socialist "paradise." Obama also appears to want the United States to follow the dictates of the so-called international order. John McCain may leave something to be desired---but he is, by far, the lesser of evils. We are going to have to hold our noses and make sure he is elected our next Commander-in-Chief.

I thought it was hilarious when EastWest wondered aloud whether David Thomson was a BhTV System Virus. LOL!

[handle]

Originally Posted by David Thomson

Many conservatives have been conditioned to believe that any charming "man of color" is simply another innocuous Sidney Poitier. Thankfully, a number of these naive folks are waking up to the harsh reality that Barack "Barry" Obama is a very dangerous man. He is truly a man of the left possessing an agenda to weaken our national defenses and turn our economy into a socialist "paradise." Obama also appears to want the United States to follow the dictates of the so-called international order. John McCain may leave something to be desired---but he is, by far, the lesser of evils. We are going to have to hold our noses and make sure he is elected our next Commander-in-Chief.

Yes that's the problem! Too many conservatives didn't see the big bad lefty till it was too late! On account of he had nice pigmentation!

That post makes me think that the FOX community has become a bubble that has left their loyal base with the false belief that most people are still siding with the far right, in spite of the the obvious thumbs down from most of the county. This might just break the elephant's back.
The fact is, in spite of the dems unfortunate left bent, the the pubs are still embracing what they don't seem to realize is an extremely right wing stance,
which has now been very badly stained by a group who wore a conservative
coat while doing very radical things, and spending money like... well you know. Go ahead ask me to list them, are ya feeling lucky? Make my day. (even with gun control I can still own a smith & wesson)
Maybe the yellow journalism machine is about to backfire! Sweet...

[kausation]

Interesting point regarding Obama's appeal to evangelicals. Besides Obama's ease discussing religion as compared to McCain, I notice that Obama's campaign has a definite pseudo-evangelical tone. Will he play this up in the general election? Would that cost him among Democrats or independents?

I could easily imagine a large movement of evangelicals to Obama. Perhaps not in West Virginia, but I think he has an appeal to the religious in the Pacific Northwest. Is this just a NW thing, or does anyone see this in other regions? Of course, the bitter pill is Obama's abortion position, but might he pivot on that (as in, leaving the decision to the states, or banning partial-birth abortions)? I would gamble that the gains of such a pivot outweigh the losses among the right-to-choose crowd. Or would it?

[handle]

Originally Posted by David Thomson

John McCain may leave something to be desired---but he is, by far, the lesser of evils. We are going to have to hold our noses and make sure he is elected our next Commander-in-Chief.

Substitute the "McCain" for "Kerry" and you have the exact Dem sentiment from '04! A real loser of a strategy... holding your nose.
You give me great hope!

[StillmanThomas]

To me, Amanda's off-the-cuff remark here perfectly captures the insanity of today's Republican Party. I find it eerily reminiscent of Barry Goldwater's statement from 1964, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Goldwater lost to LBJ that year; the margin was 61% to 38%, one of the widest in American history. I'm hoping for a similar Republican disaster this year, in the hope that it will bring them back to their senses. We always need a viable opposition party, but today's Republicans are so disconnected from reality, so out of the American mainstream, that it's truly frightening.

[Utahvoice]

Its a shame, but Amanda just doesn't seem to be a particularly bright light in the conservative blogosphere. Her debate style is deflective and full of received and undigested ideas. That she might have been an adequate debater speaks her attractiveness and self assurance, cover her modest command of her ideas. Blogging heads is one of my favorite sites, but really it does occasionally ask people to the party who are not ready for prime time. Of course this is shown most notably in her teenage defense of her opinion on American ideas about society and civilization. Ignorance in defense of adolescence is no virtue. I can go to a bar to get this level of thoughtlessness.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by Utahvoice

Ignorance in defense of adolescence is no virtue. I can go to a bar to get this level of thoughtlessness.

Wow. Deadly.

Says it all right there.

EW

[Incompetence Dodger]

Well, in fairness to Amanda, I thought it was a decent enough diavlog up until the Social Security discussion (although she went badly off the rails from that point on). In fact, earlier in the diavlog Jane praised Amanda for, in essence, not being a hack. Ironic in light of the unfortunate last 15 minutes or so.

But before all that, Amanda said something that I think is really important, and that I rarely hear expressed on either the right or the left. In fact I wish Jane had followed the thread of what Amanda was saying more sincerely, rather than immediately try to use Amanda's words as a cudgel. That just caused Amanda to try to walk it back, but TOO LATE--NO BACKSIES! I agree that the government seems to function best when the Democrats are running things and the Republicans are a strong minority acting as a brake. Over the past seven years, Republicans have proven conclusively their theory that government simply does not work (when they run it), and in the past 15 months, the Democrats have not exactly done a bang-up job as the brake on the system (not that I'm drawing an equivalence, the former's sins of commission have been far, far worse that the latter's sins of omission).

What I'm about to say may be surprising since up until now I've been pretty much a down-the-line partisan Democrat in this forum, but I really hope the Republicans get as big a thumping as possible this November, but not because I'm itching to go off on the bully like Ralphy at end of A Christmas Story (well, OK maybe a little. OK maybe a lot, but not just for that reason). Rather, I really think the Republicans desperately need to regroup, and in a hammer-and-tongs way, not a "re-branding" way, and I think fastest way for that to happen is for them to get trounced so badly that they have essentially no hope of getting into power for an election cycle or two. That will allow them to go into drydock, make the necessary repairs without worrying at the same time about "floating the boat", purge themselves of the maniacs and mouth-breathers, and come back to take what I consider is their proper place in the system.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want gridlock either, particularly with the countless messes the Bush Administration is going to have saddled the country with. But I really would like to see a strong Republican minority exerting a certain amount of resistance. It's better for the Democratic party to have a proper sparring partner, and more importantly its better for the proper functioning of the government in general.

I'm sure that sounds condescending if you are a partisan Republican and you assume that I'm not saying this in good faith. I'm also aware that my prescription is more than a bit self-serving ("it really is for the best for all concerned if you get completely wiped out in the fall"). If the shoe were on the other foot (and it has been all too often), I wouldn't want your damn pity either. All I can say is that I'm being completely sincere.

[Thus Spoke Elvis]

Originally Posted by Incompetence Dodger

Rather, I really think the Republicans desperately need to regroup, and in a hammer-and-tongs way, not a "re-branding" way, and I think fastest way for that to happen is for them to get trounced so badly that they have essentially no hope of getting into power for an election cycle or two. That will allow them to go into drydock, make the necessary repairs without worrying at the same time about "floating the boat", purge themselves of the maniacs and mouth-breathers, and come back to take what I consider is their proper place in the system.

Speaking as a conservative, I at least somewhat agree with you. There are probably an equal number of knuckleheads in both parties, but unfortunately, many of the loudest and most influential seem to be Republicans at present (yeah, Keith Olbermann is just as big a dolt as Sean Hannity, but Hannity has a bigger TV and radio audience). One of the good things that may result from an Obama presidency is the raising of the level of intellectual discourse in politics. Obama's too liberal for me to support, but I'm impressed with his willingness to discuss issues in a serious and high-browed manner. If Obama's style proves appealing to the public, I suspect (hope?) that we will see Republicans moving away from platitudes and more towards substantive arguments.

[bjkeefe]

Elvis:

What this country needs is more conservatives like you.

[handle]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Elvis:

What this country needs is more conservatives like you.

I agree, and as I posted earlier, I think the Fox news type media is making things worse for actual conservatives by creating a right spinning feedback loop that probably has more people exiting the ride every day. I don't agree with the far left, either. It is frustrating to be caught in the middle of a divergent culture, because one can only appear negative, having to criticize both camps.

P.S. I guess the big tragedy is the move away from common sense.

[harkin]

In 1950, there were 10 workers contributing to the social security fund for every benificiary. Today there are 3 workers per bene and when the baby boom retirement is in full swing there will be around 2.1

Jane - meet math.

And to those who will say worker productivity and immigration will keep us treading water and the fund solvent (look to Europe to see our socialist future), careful! You'll be arguing for immigration of skilled workers and secure borders and that will decrease dem voter registrations (as well as social service handouts)!

And Jane, when you say this is a country that takes care of poor people...please also acknowledge that the dems are a party that perpetuates poverty through it's failed Great Society policies. This is a country that was made great by allowing people to take care of themselves.....THOSE people have to be a vast majority for charity and welfare for those who truly are unable to take care of themselves to ever work. The dems long ago signed off on a cycle of broken homes and excuses for failure in order to buy votes.

Have to agree on Amanda's weakness.....if you want to expose the faults of FDR and the New Deal you best get someone with the facts to back it up like Amity Shlaes.

[Big Wayne]

Originally Posted by harkin

In 1950, there were 10 workers contributing to the social security fund for every beneficiary. Today there are 3 workers per bene and when the baby boom retirement is in full swing there will be around 2.1

Jane - meet math.

I know you won't take my word for it, especially since I'm leaving shortly and won't be here to follow up on this discussion, but trust me, SS is not going bankrupt.

Why would solvency require more people paying in that receiving? This is a myth. If this were true, no 401(k) would be solvent. My 401K doesn't have multiple payers and no one frets that I won't have enough to retire with it. By what strange logic is SS uniquely dependent on a high ratio of people paying in vs. people paying out?

This has been studied and examined from every angle, and the program is solvent as is for decades into the future, and can be made viable for the rest of time with only minor adjustments, such as increasing the cap by a few thousand dollars (as Obama has proposed).

Under the current system, over 99% of money paid in is paid back to retirees or other beneficiaries. Under the private plans sponsored by Republicans , anywhere from 25% - 44% would be siphoned off to profit investment bankers. The worst private plan in the world is Chile's, under which almost half of the money paid into the system goes to administrative overhead and profit for the private interests that manage the system. The Chile system was the one that most closely resembled the Bush plan.

It's nothing more than a plan to screw Americans while enriching a small number of Republicans.

The simple fact is that SS is the most successful social program in human history. There are tens of millions of people whose lives were extended and improved by this program. If you are hell bent on destroying this program, you do so with the knowledge that you will be creating widespread poverty and homelessness among society's most vulnerable citizens.

78% of African Americans over 65 depend on Social Security for half or more of their income.

53% of African Americans depend on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

Social Security constitutes more than half of the incomes of nearly two-thirds of retired Americans. For one in five, it is their only income.


Apologies for the sloppy and poorly organized post, but I am late for my next appointment.

[harkin]

B Wayne - I appreciate your thoughtful reply but you seem to mischaracterize my intent. I don't want to 'destroy' SS, I want to lower the amount of people who are dependent on it. The reason that

78% of African Americans over 65 depend on Social Security for half or more of their income.

53% of African Americans depend on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

is exactly because they are the victims of 'you can't help yourself' policies foisted on them in return for votes.


Please continue the discussion in your own time.