Tales of Your New Republican Majority!

[bjkeefe]

Here's a fresh thread for GOPtalk (previous general one here; a more narrowly focused one here).

To start it off, I recommend an article by Brian Friel, a staff writer at Congressional Quarterly, appearing in today's NYT. Here's how it starts:

Where Will the G.O.P. Go Digging?

WITH the Republican takeover of the House, Representative Darrell Issa of California will become the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Capitol Hill’s top watchdog panel. As the lead Republican on the panel the last two years, Mr. Issa, a hard-charging, quick-witted former car-alarm company owner, has been the Obama administration’s most aggressive antagonist on spending under the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Starting in January, armed with the power to call hearings and issue subpoenas, he will play lead conductor to the new majority’s other committee chairmen in investigating what he says is a “long list” of oversight targets.

Below, I’ve taken an educated guess as to nine of the issues that Mr. Issa and his colleagues are most likely to look into. While some of those investigations are appropriate, others will be seen as attempts to rack up headlines that could embarrass the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

And no matter which party is in control of the House, there are always questions about whether the oversight panel and other committees aren’t missing issues crying out for additional scrutiny. So I conducted an informal poll of 14 good-government watchdogs — veterans of the oversight process, former public officials and academics — to propose an alternative set of targets that have been largely ignored by both parties. A steady focus on these issues could reap benefits for taxpayers that would last well beyond the next news cycle.

==========

[Added] Shameless self-congratulations department.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Here's a fresh thread for GOPtalk (previous general one here; a more narrowly focused one here).

To start it off, I recommend an article by Brian Friel, a staff writer at Congressional Quarterly, appearing in today's NYT. Here's how it starts:



==========

[Added] Shameless self-congratulations department.

Just going off what I've read on a few conservative blogs etc., I think that he's correct on the job offers, Angelo, NBP, possibly on ACORN. Maybe the stimulus. It looks like he overlooked the firing of Gerald Walpin, which will probably come up. I don't know if they'll spend much time on the oil spill.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Just going off what I've read on a few conservative blogs etc., ... I don't know if they'll spend much time on the oil spill.

Not if Joe Barton has anything to say about it, that's for sure.

P.S. I am astounded that you think it's worth Congress's time to investigate the New Black Panthers.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Not if Joe Barton has anything to say about it, that's for sure.

P.S. I am astounded that you think it's worth Congress's time to investigate the New Black Panthers.

It's not investigating the NBP, really--it's investigating why the Obama administration felt compelled to intervene, as well as the broader issue of whether or not the Obama DOJ is behaving in a race-neutral way. I think it's actually the most potentially damaging topic, in terms of election consequences.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

It's not investigating the NBP, really--it's investigating why the Obama administration felt compelled to intervene, as well as the broader issue of whether or not the Obama DOJ is behaving in a race-neutral way. I think it's actually the most potentially damaging topic, in terms of election consequences.

So, you're saying it's worth doing purely or primarily from the point of view of trying to gain an edge for the 2012 election?

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

So, you're saying it's worth doing purely or primarily from the point of view of trying to gain an edge for the 2012 election?

No, I'm just saying that purely from the perspective of the potential effects of investigations, that's the one I'd be most worried about if I were the Obama WH.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

No, I'm just saying that purely from the perspective of the potential effects of investigations, that's the one I'd be most worried about if I were the Obama WH.

Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

Investigating the NBP? Probably not. We know what they are--a racist hate group. Investigating the DOJ's involvement in the case and the broader issue of race-neutrality in the DOJ? Yes.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Investigating the NBP? Probably not. We know what they are--a racist hate group. Investigating the DOJ's involvement in the case and the broader issue of race-neutrality in the DOJ? Yes.

Okay, thanks.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Okay. But you're kind of ducking my original question: do you feel investigating the NBP is worth Congress's time?

Congress already spends enough time investigating topics of colossal importance to government like...baseball

[bjkeefe]

See also: Wonderment's thread, "The New Republican Congress and its livestock policy."

[bjkeefe]

Here is something that will get absolutely no attention in the House for the next two years, at least: new (worse) projections on rising sea levels.

Recent research suggests that the volume of the ocean may have been stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.

The sea has risen about eight inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantial erosion unless people intervene. Governments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disappearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.

Scientists have been struggling for years to figure out if a similar pace of sea-level rise is likely to continue in this century — or whether it will accelerate. In its last big report, in 2007, the United Nations group that assesses climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that sea level would rise at least seven more inches, and might rise as much as two feet, in the 21st century.

But the group warned that these estimates did not fully incorporate “ice dynamics,” the possibility that the world’s big ice sheets, as well as its thousands of smaller glaciers and ice caps, would start spitting ice into the ocean at a much faster rate than it could melt on land. Scientific understanding of this prospect was so poor, the climate panel said, that no meaningful upper limit could be put on the potential rise of sea level.

That report prompted fresh attempts by scientists to calculate the effect of ice dynamics, leading to the recent, revised projections of sea-level rise.

Satellite evidence suggests that the rise of the sea accelerated late in the 20th century, so that the level is now increasing a little over an inch per decade, on average — about a foot per century. Increased melting of land ice appears to be a major factor. Another is that most of the extra heat being trapped by human greenhouse emissions is going not to warm the atmosphere but to warm the ocean, and as it warms, the water expands.

With the study of the world’s land ice still in its early stages, scientists have lately been trying crude methods to figure out how much the pace might accelerate in coming decades.

One approach, pioneered by a German climate researcher named Stefan Rahmstorf, entails looking at the past relationship between the temperature of the earth and sea level, then making projections. Another, developed by a University of Colorado glaciologist named Tad Pfeffer, involves calculations about how fast the glaciers, if they keep speeding up, might be able to dump ice into the sea.

Those two methods yield approximately the same answer: that sea level could rise by 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet between now and 2100. A developing consensus among climate scientists holds that the best estimate is a little over three feet.

Calculations about the effect of a three-foot increase suggest that it would cause shoreline erosion to accelerate markedly. In places that once flooded only in a large hurricane, the higher sea would mean that a routine storm could do the trick. In the United States, an estimated 5,000 square miles of dry land and 15,000 square miles of wetlands would be at risk of permanent inundation, though the actual effect would depend on how much money was spent protecting the shoreline.

[...]

Moreover, scientists point out that if their projections prove accurate, the sea will not stop rising in 2100. By that point, the ice sheets could be undergoing extensive melting.

“Beyond a hundred years out, it starts to look really challenging,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “You start thinking about every coastal city on the planet hiding behind a wall, with storms coming.”

Bring on the ostriches!

After a decade of budget cuts and shifting space priorities in Washington, several satellites vital to monitoring the ice sheets and other aspects of the environment are on their last legs, with no replacements at hand. A replacement for ICESat will not be launched until 2015 at the earliest.

“We are slowly going blind in space,” said Robert Bindschadler, a polar researcher at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who spent 30 years with NASA studying ice.

Several federal agencies and two presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican, have made decisions that contributed to the problems.

For instance, an attempt by the Clinton and Bush administrations to combine certain military and civilian satellites ate up $5 billion before it was labeled a “horrendous and costly failure” by a Congressional committee.

A plan by President George W. Bush to return to the moon without allocating substantial new money squeezed budgets at NASA.

Now, the Obama administration is seeking to chart a new course, abandoning the goal of returning to the moon and seeking a substantial increase in financing for earth sciences. It is also promising an overall strategy for improving the country’s environmental observations.

Major elements of the administration’s program won support from both parties on Capitol Hill and were signed into law recently, but amid a larger budget impasse, Congress has not allocated the money President Obama requested.

[...]

The satellite difficulties are one symptom of a broader problem: because no scientifically advanced country has made a strategic priority of studying land ice, scientists lack elementary information that they need to make sense of what is happening.

They do not know the lay of the land beneath most of the world’s glaciers, including many in Greenland, in sufficient detail to calculate how fast the ice might retreat. They have only haphazard readings of the depth and temperature of the ocean near Greenland, needed to figure out why so much warm water seems to be attacking the ice sheet.

The information problems are even more severe in Antarctica. Much of that continent is colder than Greenland, and its ice sheet is believed to be more stable, over all. But in recent years, parts of the ice sheet have started to flow rapidly, raising the possibility that it will destabilize in the same way that much of the world’s other ice has.

Certain measurements are so spotty for Antarctica that scientists have not been able to figure out whether the continent is losing or gaining ice. Scientists do not have good measurements of the water temperature beneath the massive, floating ice shelves that are helping to buttress certain parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica. Since the base of the ice sheet sits below sea level in that region, it has long been thought especially vulnerable to a warming ocean.

But the cavities beneath ice shelves and floating glaciers are difficult to reach, and scientists said that too little money had been spent to develop technologies that could provide continuing measurements.

Figuring out whether Antarctica is losing ice over all is essential, because that ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea level by nearly 200 feet. The parts that appear to be destabilizing contain water sufficient to raise it perhaps 10 feet.

Daniel Schrag, a Harvard geochemist and head of that university’s Center for the Environment, praised the scientists who do difficult work studying ice, but he added, “The scale of what they can do, given the resources available, is just completely out of whack with what is required.”

Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed.

“The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster.”

[bjkeefe]

Richard Posner as quoted on Crooked Timber, 12 May 2009:

The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of “originalism,” the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising … By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

Remember, that was before he'd likely heard of two-thirds of the Republicans who ran for Congress this time around.

[bjkeefe]

Some guy from Jersey named John R. Bohrer simply does not care for his governor.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Some guy from Jersey named John R. Bohrer simply does not care for his governor.

More about Chris Christie (via): apparently, he is a big fan of Andrew Breitbart's lying videotaper, James O'Keefe.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

More about Chris Christie (via): apparently, he is a big fan of Andrew Breitbart's lying videotaper, James O'Keefe.

The article hit a high note early on with the Springsteen quote, then went downhill pretty fast.

[bjkeefe]

Politico:

Top RNC aide quits, blasts Steele
By: Jonathan Martin
November 16, 2010 01:06 PM EST

Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee.

In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle.

[...]

The short version of the RNC's 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties.

Steele has not indicated whether he will seek another term at the helm of the committee and an array of Republicans are already maneuvering to ensure that he does not win re-election in the event he runs. The depth of the party’s problems his political director reveals is likely to make it considerably more difficult for the embattled chairman if he does pursue a second term.

That’s in part because Collins is not one of the committee’s persistent Steele critics but a respected operative and senior staffer inside the RNC building who was given authority over the $15 million line of credit the party took out this fall. In addition to the normal duties of his job, Collins spent much of the summer and fall quietly travelling the country and meeting with major donors in an effort to boost the party’s lackluster fundraising. It was a highly unusual task for a political director and, coupled with his primary job responsibilities, effectively made the Iowa native the operational head of the party.

The letter is even more damaging because the aide doesn’t just lay out a bill of particulars about the troubled committee but specifically rebuts the pushback deployed by Steele to defend his tenure.

[...]

Collins’ parting blast is also damning simply by virtue of the sheer volume of data the aide reveals and the degree of precision he uses to paint a picture of a dysfunctional RNC.

The rest.

The letter is here (via), ostensibly, but I'm seeing a blank page at the moment. [Added: also tried Scribd, but getting an internal server error.]

Of course, this could be a puppet show. For all we know, the real money will be funneled through outfits like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. Yeah, Karl Rove again. Him.

[bjkeefe]

Not sure it applies in this case, though. But have you seen Dick Cheney's new look?

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Not sure it applies in this case, though. But have you seen Dick Cheney's new look?

Love the comments

I propose that the next shovel-ready project should be 'digging this guy's grave'

This is a deeply-disturbing photo. Now he looks like a Nazi doctor who conducts medical experiments on twins for fun.

perhaps he can share his weight loss secrets with Bristol....

So that's what Augusto Pinochet has been up to lately.

Oooo Dick, what's your weight-loss secret? Twinkie diet? No longer feeding off of everyone's hatred for you?

Say hello to Sadaam when you see him.

I'm assuming that picture was taken after they had open the Ark of the Covenant, right?

Okay who has the death pool going? And have going away party plans been drawn for when this spawn of Satan goes to join his Dad?

I wouldn't wish a slow, wasting death on anyone, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

Wishing for Cheney to die, fantasizing about his death, wishing for him to go to Hell, calling him a Nazi, equating him with Pinochet, oh and Bristol Palin jokes. The classy comments section at lefty blogs.

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by operative

Love the comments


Wishing for Cheney to die, fantasizing about his death, wishing for him to go to Hell, calling him a Nazi, equating him with Pinochet, oh and Bristol Palin jokes. The classy comments section at lefty blogs.

But leftwingers aren't violent! This is especially great on the heels of BJ whining about the commenters at Hotair for stuff that was exponentially milder.

[graz]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

But leftwingers aren't violent! This is especially great on the heels of BJ whining about the commenters at Hotair for stuff that was exponentially milder.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by graz

Ah, don't be that way, graz. If not for typing WHAT ABOUT YOU???1?, what would chiwhi have to say?

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Ah, don't be that way, graz. If not for typing WHAT ABOUT YOU???1?, what would chiwhi have to say?

I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

[operative]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

Well, if it was basketball, I could go along with it. Just not baseball or NASCAR. Culturally I'm more fitting the traditional image of the liberal democrat, I must confess :\

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I dunno! I could run rings around you talking about sports, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone involved.

first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Oh, snap.

[graz]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Careful now ... he'll run rings around you!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by graz

Careful now ... he'll run rings around you!

Is that like going in circles?

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

first question:

how does the baseball team that plays on the south side of chicago spell its name?

Umm....Saskatchewan Roughriders, right?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Love the comments

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny myself.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny myself.

Oooo Dick, what's your weight-loss secret? Twinkie diet? No longer feeding off of everyone's hatred for you?

Say hello to Sadaam when you see him.

I'm assuming that picture was taken after they had open the Ark of the Covenant, right?

Okay who has the death pool going? And have going away party plans been drawn for when this spawn of Satan goes to join his Dad?

I wouldn't wish a slow, wasting death on anyone, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case.

These totally bring the lolz.

I seldom read the comments section at Hot Air or other conservative sites. I'm sure you come across some objectionable stuff-Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the occasional birther, etc.

But I have never seen the same level of bile. Routinely wishing death on Cheney, fantasizing about him burning in hell, etc. this stuff is utterly abominable.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

These totally bring the lolz.

Indeed. Especially if you understand how four out of five jokes made in the Wonkette comments are re-purposed statements originally made by prominent Republicans and leading members of the conservative media.

(cf. Weigel, "I hope he fails.")

... this stuff is utterly abominable.

Lighten up, Francis.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Indeed. Especially if you understand how pretty much everything written in the Wonkette comments is re-purposed statements made by prominent Republicans and leading members of the conservative media.

Ok, where are the comments by prominent Republicans fantasizing about Obama dying, burning in hell, being a Nazi, etc.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Ok, where are the comments by prominent Republicans fantasizing about Obama dying, burning in hell, being a Nazi, etc.

L M G T F Y.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

L M G T F Y.

Can't you just find a 'prominent Republican' saying it? Or, short of that, some posters on Hot Air, NRO, etc. saying it?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

Can't you just find a 'prominent Republican' saying it?

Yes.

Or, short of that, some posters on Hot Air, NRO, etc. saying it?

Add site:hotair.com to any of the search pages given in my previous response.

And really, more to the point, try to get to Piaget's fourth stage, will you please? What is it with you wingnuts being unable to argue except via the literalism of a six-year old?

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Yes.

Claiming that Obama's policies threaten us as much as past military enemies does not equate him morally with Hitler. So still waiting. And when did Gingrich fantasize about Obama starving to death and burning in hell?

Add site:hotair.com to any of the search pages given in my previous response.

Tried but it didn't seem to include comments sections.

And really, more to the point, try to get to Piaget's fourth stage, will you please? What is it with you wingnuts being unable to argue except via the literalism of a six-year old?

So, when conservatives do something, they mean it and it's totally awful. When liberals do something far more egregious, they're just kidding.

I guess if you can actually find some of these elusive comments you think are out there, I can just respond in the same--'they're just keeeeeeeding.'

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

So, when conservatives do something, they mean it and it's totally awful. When liberals do something far more egregious, they're just kidding.

This is classic wingnuttery -- flipping out (or indulging in fauxtrage, more likely) over the comments left on a snark blog, about Dick Cheney of all people, and thinking that excuses the torrents of bile coming from your heroes and your leadership, that gets directed at thousands of people, not to mention entire groups of them.

The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.

[operative]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

This is classic wingnuttery -- flipping out (or indulging in fauxtrage, more likely) over the comments left on a snark blog, about Dick Cheney of all people, and thinking that excuses the torrents of bile coming from your heroes and your leadership, that gets directed at thousands of people, not to mention entire groups of them.

The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.[/QUOTE]

You haven't proven your case and you haven't made a real attempt at proving your case. Your argument style has basically been to say "I'm right, go prove that I'm right."

You have provided no examples of "Republican leaders" making comments on par with the comments made on Wonkette. And give me a break with this "they're just joooooooking" defense. Because if I read the comments section at Daily Kos or any other high profile lefty blog with a big comments section, I'd probably find the exact same bile. I guess they're all joking, too. You can choose to magically provide the intent of the posters, but I'm not ready to accept your soothsaying powers. I take the comments for what they are in their face, not what you interpret them to be.

I find it inappropriate to joke about your political enemies starving to death and burning in hell. Maybe you don't.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by operative

The comments section of Wonkette does not equate to the statements made by Republican officials and conservative media figures, in intent, seriousness, scope, or significance. If you can't accept that, I am not interested in trying to help you further, given what I have perceived of you since you've joined this board, but I do hope someone does at some point. Or that you grow up on your own.

Interesting that this came out appearing to be your own words. Freudian slip?

You haven't proven your case and you haven't made a real attempt at proving your case.

Correct. There are some things that are so obviously true, about which you are so pigheaded, that it's not worth the bother.