Here is the statement the White House just put out on kicking Judd Gregg to the curb, in full:
“Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart”.
Translation: Gregg asked us for the gig and lied to us, so eff him, this is his fault.
As one longtime White House correspondent just told me, "I have never seen a White House statement that kicks someone in the balls that hard before."
This marks the second strike on a Commerce appointment. Pending further comments from both sides, one assumes that control of the 2010 census, which in turn affects redistricting, was a major sticking point.
It also serves as a reminder that Republicans can serve in Obama's cabinet, but Obama sets the policy.
After this harsh statement, Gregg's in a tough spot. That he apparently asked for the job indicates he wasn't relishing a battle in 2010 for his seat. Publicly feuding with Obama in a state that Obama carried by 9 points is probably not good for Gregg's re-election prospects, unless Obama's popularity tanks in New Hampshire in the next two years, something that could happen if the economy fails to turn around. [UPDATE: Gregg says he would "probably not" run for re-election in 2010.]
Of course, Obama may lose a potential "moderate" Republican on future key votes.
This one's not over.
By the way, this marks the second time a woman will not get to replace an Obama Commerce nominee. The first time, New Mexico Lt. Governor Diane Denish would have replaced Bill Richardson as Governor. Bonnie Newman will now not become a United States Senator.
132 comments
Really? Am I first?
That was a hard statement. I'm a little stunned at the harshness. But - anyway - who would be a good replacement? I'm arguing for Mike Bloomberg...
QT
Sounds like the economy is as bad as people fear and that the parties are drawing up sides.
Expect things to get uglier.
Gregg stepped down after the Republicans threatened to file a lawsuit against Obama for his unconstitutional usurping of power regarding the census.
This is golden.
If you remember the movie "Apollo 13" where the newpaper reporter was intimating that what would happen next would be the nations biggest failure, the blond head of the landing team said "No, I think this will be our finest hour."
Gentlemen, I believe this is our finest hour.
So, what we got from Gregg earlier was a sort of "you can't fire me because I quit!" statement? Interesting.
I wonder how long this stimulus has been planned and what, exactly, were the planned provisions for it at the time Gregg accepted the nomination?
Sean points out how vengefu, inept and pre-partisan the Obama administration is.
Considering who Gregg is (was?) it is hadly a distinction to be proud of to have this said of you: "I have never seen a White House statement that kicks someone in the balls that hard before."
As the poster notes above -- Let the Battle Begin!
Obama had better watch himself. He has peopled his adminstration with other people's loyalists, folks with lots of personal ambition. So-called fake outsiders wont fair well in DC. They will be eaten up and spat out.
Someone may just have to be put in his place . . . still developing . . . .
Gregg's statment was classy. The White House statement was classless. The differences here are principled: over this disaster of a stimulus bill, and over the attempt to hijack the census. It's a blow to Obama. If Gregg's imprimatur was so valuable last week, then his repudiation of Obama's fiscal policy is inversely damaging.
Now that I think of it, gregg didn't vote for the Bill in the Senate. Hmmmm . . .
Obama Administration = Gang who couldn't shoot straight.
Ha! Ha!
I am with Rush: I ahve to admit it. I love watching this clown fail!!!
The front pagers at DKos noted that Gregg made the statement, without alerting them, and right before Obama went on at a Caterpillar plant in Peoria. We may never know what happened, but we can be sure that the timing of the withdrawal was pure politics.
Gregg is done.
Just more Rs proving they can't play nice when they don't get to start at QB and call all the plays. The American people are watching, and the Rs just look more selfish by the day. Its 3rd and 20 regarding our economy, and the Rs are refusing en masse to even line up for the play. So very sad.
I favor Robert Reich for Commerce Secretary.
The Richardson nomination was largely a 'thank you' for Richardson's early support during the primary. Gregg's nomination was an attempt to win over Senate Republicans in a bid for bipartisanship. While Richardson was clearly qualified for the job, the main driver behind neither nomination was the candidate's ability.
A Reich nomination would be based purely upon ability, and therefore is less likely to result in an embarrassing third withdrawal. Reich and Obama share the same world view, particularly when it comes to economics, so there will be no messy disagreements about key policy issues. Lastly, Reich is clean. The man pays his taxes and hasn't gotten mixed up in anything McConnell could crucify him for during the confirmation hearings.
Reich has already served as Secretary of Labor, so he knows the ropes. He's a respected economist that follows a moderate path; he embraces neither unrestricted free trade nor over-regulation of the market. Perhaps most importantly, Reich cares about people, particularly those not born into wealth. He will do much to revitalize small business, particularly family-owned and operated shops and local economies over foreign corporations.
@PeteKent...
You are Rush.
Gregg is a jerk. If you accept a job from somebody, you don't go in on the first day (or before) and start telling the boss you're not going to do certain things. The Cabinet does not set policy--its job is to advise the president, and then once he makes a decision, to carry out his policy. Period!
Gregg evidently thought he was on some kind of Journey-To-The-Center-Of-The-Earth mission, to burrow deep within the power structure then undermine it so that in 2012 his cronies could have the top job back.
I hope Nate's right--that Gregg will now face a bruising, unwinnable fight for reelection.
It's also wonderful to see an Administration that is so decisive, and blunt when it needs to be! Bravo! No beating around the bush for these guys.
Thanks, Statler N Waldorf. That's a good suggestion. Interesting to see how it all plays out...
QT
This is a rather undisciplined comment from the WH, especially when they critically need the three moderate Republican votes. It certainly looks like the Washington part of the honeymoon is over.
I'm loving this like a McDonald's commercial ...
Faux Noise were beginning to harp on that Census Bit as if it were their last hope to criticize Obama ...
now Obama can pick a DEMOCRAT ( what he should have done all along ) and they can harp ALL they want because its a win win for the Administration ...
BTW... Republicans can say GOODBYE to that senate seat because the Democrats got this ...
Gregg said in his press conference that he doesn't think he'll run in 2010 anyways, and I hope he doesn't because NH deserves a better breed of senator.
This is great news...
Statler
Once again I find myself agreeing with you. Reich would be an interesting choice. Having heard him speak on numerous occasions, he's clearly an extraordinary intellect and, as you say, genuinely cares for the little guy (sorry).
Great idea.
Is it me, or are the conservatrolls reaching?
It seems to me, Gregg realised he'd have to eat shit for the next couple years, implementing the policies of a Democraic president, and that his vacated seat would go to a Democrat inn 2010. The fact that insisted on a Republican replacement and recused himself from voting on the stimulus tells you how much of a prick he is.
Fortunately for Gregg, the corporate media will cover him and say this was Obama's fault for not being bipartisan.
I find it quite amusing that the Republicans are happy with Gregg. Its obvious he folded to right wing pressure. Obama comes across as gracious having offered a cabinet job to a Republican and once again, as with the house stimulus vote, the GOP slaps his outreached hand. How do you think that plays in PR? Obama comes across as gracious - his approval will continue to push 70% while the GOP is seen as petty and childish.
Wow, I'm the 21st poster! How amazing!
Cut from the WH PR:
"... and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Thanks for nothing."
apparently the dude was in some sort of a kamikaze mission. Infiltrate the obama admin, kinda give in to certain things but ultimately plotting with repubs to design an easier map for the repubs in the future. i mean, it was worth it. he didn't feel like running for senator again, and has reduced powers as a minority member. as a harshly partisan, if moderate repub, he decided he'd take one for the team.
CNN: Boehner and Darrell Issa (a world class prick), put huge political pressure on Gregg.
PUSSY.
Exhibit A that the GOP has never been interested in "bipartisanship." The Republican Party has just become the Party of Nuh-Uh.
Excellent. Game on.
Please stop perpetuating the meme that Gregg is a "moderate" Republican, just because he's from the Northeast. He is by far the most conservative Northeastern Senator and 17th most conservative overall with a +0.510 DW-Nominate for the 110th Senate (between Crapo and Lott). That's not moderate, that's run-of-the-mill right-winger.
This "golden" moment for the GOP is what - that a senator who isn't running for re-election (unless he changes his mind on that, too) decided he didn't like being called a wuss by the right? That (like the rest of the right wing echo chamber) he thought being in the Cabinet meant he would get his way, rather than serving as an advisor to the President and expected to publicly support his policies (ask Colin Powell about that sometime)? That he didn't want to answer questions about his aid who's under indictment for trading gifts for legislative access?
If Gregg had really been a principled person, he could easily have stated his opposition to the stimulus openly - it didn't change so dramatically in the last 2 weeks that he's been the nominee to change anyone's mind who is fundamentally opposed to spending. Similalrly, only an idiot wouldn't know that a Democratic president isn't going to let the GOP push the census to further undercount minorities. If he'd tried to do anything like that in the actual office he woud have been fired for insurbordination (and no lawsuit would save him). The White House was trying to shield his application from being blocked by Dems by stating they'd control the process, for crying out loud. But no, only after Rush, Boehner et al. criticize him does he suddenly decide the differences are too large to be surmounted.
I don't think Gregg's an idiot or utterly clueless, but I do think he's taking the coward's way out now. Nothing of substance has changed in the last two weeks. I hope the people of New Hampshire see this for what it really is and kick him or anyone backed by him to the curb in 2010.
As a NH voter, I was appalled when Gregg thought he could dictate to the Gov. re3garding his replacement. While I don't fault Gov. Lynch for agreeing to appoint a moderate Republican, since NH voters elected a moderate Repub. to that seat, Gregg was being EXTREMELY PARTISAN in insisting on a Repub. replacement before he would accept the job.
Then Gregg sat on the sidelines during the stimulus debate, refusing to vote on cloture or the bill itself. He should have stepped down. Gregg cheated the NH voters out of representation by refusing to vote. Again he was being extremely partisan - refusing to break with the obstructionists in his party, but not willing to vote against the administration he was about to join.
Now he bows out because he won't be able to call the shots. Typical of much of the Republicans currently serving in Congress. Even in the minority, they still want everything their way. Funny how they didn't feel that way when they were in the majority.
Gregg should resign from the Senate for the good of NH and the country.
trialsanderrors,
Not familiar with DW-Nominate, but the American Conservative Union has him 28th (http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm) and National Journal has him 33rd for 2007 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/). He's no liberal, but he's definitely not as far to the right as most R's.
RECAP:
Judd Gregg last week:
"I have recused myself from voting during the pendency of my nomination," Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, told CNBC.
Earlier in the program he said he was "not really engaged in the stimulus bill," but that he did believe "we need one."
"We need a robust one," he added. "I think the one that's pending is in the range we need. I do believe it's a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity."
Got that? Judd Gregg publicly supporting the administration, the need for the stimulus bill, and that stimulus bill as the right solution for the economic problems facing the country.
CNN a little while ago:
A Democratic source close to the Obama White House said Thursday that Judd Gregg "campaigned for the job" — that the New Hampshire senator had asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to approach the president about the Commerce post.
Gregg "sat with [Obama], said he wanted the job, knew his policies and erratically dropped out without warning," said the source, minutes after the Republican senator announced his withdrawal from consideration.
Gregg sought out the administration, pitched himself for the position, and then lobbied for it.
Judd Gregg today:
it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.
And on the record, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:
"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President's agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama's key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart".
Gregg sought out the position. He knew the policies. He said he could accept and support them. He publicly supported the stimulus package. And now he's saying it had become apparent to him he couldn't do something that he had already agreed to do and in fact had done publicly.
The White House source in the CNN article is right that Gregg was erratic. But in another sense, Gregg is being consistent. He's always been a rightwing Republican, and like those Republicans aligned with the right wing of their party, their allegiance to the right wing of their party is more powerful than their commit to look out for the good of all the country
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/12/173717/863/901/696763
All the talk of balls and kicking is for DC inside baseball types. Administration doesn't want the evening news to lead with speculation that this was another botched Obama cabinet job.
People outside the beltway will see this how they wish. I personally view it as a complete Gregg cave-in after being threatened with GOP persona non grata status. Gregg knew the score when he signed up on both stimulus and census. He couldn't handle the heat.
Fuck me, how many committees does Russ Feingold sit on?
Oooh, typical spin from CNN on the Gregg withdrawel.
If Gregg secretly wanted the job so he could preside over the census and help his party gain seats, it makes him look bad, given how many more important things there are to do in the short term. For Emmanuel to move toward taking the census away from commerce seems a questionable move as well, but may have flushed out Gregg's ulterior motives. On balance, it would seem to be a win for Obama in the long run to have Gregg out of the picture, but the whole process seems poorly thought out.
If Obama wants to get over this fast, I also favor Robert Reich.
I just hope the Gregg fiasco doesn't affect the stimulus approval. He did not vote the first time, but now will probably vote against it.
I suspect the pressure from Right wing talk show hosts has something to do with everything negative.
Can we have a Post on the MN decision today as well as the extra 25 votes that Al Franken will be getting? We will need another Dem. in the Senate ASAP.
Taft,
Or Gregg could have felt like he was being tokenized and used by the administration to tout "bipartisanship" while being stripped of his actual duties and responsibilities as head of the Commerce Department. The decision by Obama and Rahm Emanuel to transfer control over the census to the White House after Gregg was nominated was antagonistic and highly inappropriate.
I can't defend Gregg's apparent flip-flop on the stimulus other than to suggest that he might have assumed it was trending in a certain direction, only to come up disappointed by the finished product. But he shouldn't have campaigned for a job he didn't really want.
Statler -- good suggestion. I've been really impressed with Reich every time I see him on the tube. Candid, thoughtful, pointing out issues that may have been overlooked, and respectful as well.
I agree with others that the WH response was pretty harsh, but this is the big leagues; I have to wonder what has been going on behind the scenes. Can you imagine the BO reaction -- WTF? But of course, being BO, no such word would escape his lips -- that's why he has Rahm.
As for the package and its progress, at least 75% of this is mental. If the Repubs keep shouting it down, then any failure of public confidence will be theirs. I find their claims that they were steamrolled laughable and grotesquely disingenuous -- can we replay the video of the last 8 years?
So are we decided? Reich? And Nate for undersecretary of numbers, and Sean for undersecretary of comment? (And I think it is so cool you guys are continuing with the site! Mahalo!)
If you want to predict how regular folks will see this, you have to know how they currently think. (See Popkin, The Reasoning Voter, a great book on cognitive short-cuts and public opinion.)
So, what do people think of Obama versus congressional Republicans? Obama is the one who reaches out to Republicans and invites them to the WH and goes to Capitol Hill and compromised with Specter. Congressional Republicans, except for those three, refused to cooperate. As Gallup shows, their ratings are in the toilet, while Obama enjoys high public esteem.
Given these pre-existing attitudes, the Gregg withdrawal plays to Republican weaknesses and Obama's strengths. Obama is still the one who has reached out his hand. (That statement won't be read by practically anyone and only sounds harsh in Washington-speak.) Congressional Republicans will continue to be seen as unable to get past their partisanship and work with Obama.
While McConnell is no doubt crowing loudly about the Gregg withdrawal, the major negative effect this will have on Obama is more the number rather than the person of the withdrawals. One could easily crack a joke (I,m sure Letterman will later tonite) to the effect of "The Commerce Department-You Can't Even Give it Away".
Which is why it's time to get serious and appoint someone who will neither be shamed out of the position due to closet skeletons or will withdraw due to fundamental disagreements.
It is time to stop using the seat of Commerce Secretary as if it were a door prize.
While not exactly the strongest Cabinet seat (Attorney general, Sec'tary of State, eg), it is nonetheless a position on the US Cabinet. Use ambassadorships to countries that have never caused the US any headaches as a token gift if you have to, but not the Cabinet.
There is simply too great a potential for embarrassment. In fact, we can reasonably say that Obama's only embarrassments so far have all been centered on his Cabinet nominees. Sure, the GOP slung mud at the Stimulus, but it passed (well, mostly anyway). What hasn't passed are the nominations of Daschle, Richardson and Gregg. This is high profile stuff here. You can't just stick anybody in there and hope the public won't notice.
Which is why I favor Reich for Commerce and Dean for HHS. Both men are qualified for these posts because of their experience and proven abilities. Both are prolific writers that have laid out their case for their positions long ago, and they strongly resemble Obama's. The potential for embarrassment is low with these candidates-and right now, pleasantly boring is better than embarrassingly obnoxious if Obama wants to move past the appointments period of his Presidency on to the meatier issues which command his attention, like healthcare, civil rights, the economy and the environment.
Enough distractions-pick nominees based solely on their ability. If you just have to find a job for somebody that did you a favor or a Republican you want to marry into your political family to use as the basis for an alliance, make them the Ambassador to Belgium.
oops - left out of my last comment - Obama compromised with Specter and with Collins and Snowe. By the way, the Maine Senators are being praised to the skys in Maine. Maine is not an average state, but responses are probably indicative of how independents see the stimulus compromisers.
Roland Martin fucking OWNS.
Pete Kent is like Rush dinossaur: down with Obama even if it screws the nation. That's what I call patriotism...
Statler wrote:
"Which is why I favor Reich for Commerce and Dean for HHS. Both men are qualified for these posts because of their experience and proven abilities. Both are prolific writers that have laid out their case for their positions long ago, and they strongly resemble Obama's. The potential for embarrassment is low with these candidates-and right now, pleasantly boring is better than embarrassingly obnoxious..."
Um, I hate to beat a dead horse here, but where were you in January 2004?
I don't think Gregg was completely honest about the stimulus being the main issue. Like most of you have pointed out, Gregg knew and agreed to the general outline of the stimulus two weeks ago.
I think the WH taking the census away from Commerce was the seed of this whole rift. The stimulus is a convenient excuse and timely since Gregg will be heading back to the Senate.
pssst, Mr. President. Put in rising economic superstar Austen Goolsbee in at commerce.
Or pick a gay or lesbian.
Good riddance - Gregg never seemed too enthusiastic about the Commerce Secretary position anyway.
Maybe after this bipartisan thing bites him in the ass a few more times, Obama will decide it's not worth the trouble.
Gregg is a 2nd generation politician (his dad was also NH Gov.)
Do his children have political ambitions? Are they employed by GOP-controlled entities?
My guess is Rove made threats to his family. This is the way this cabal works.
smk22:
Poole & Rosenthal's Nominate family of ideology scores is pretty much the gold standard in the field. Interest group scores, while widely cited (including by lazy academics), are essentially worthless unless you're interested in how specific legislators match the agenda of the particular interest group that issues it (keeping in mind that portraying legislators as moderates or radicals is often part of their agenda).
Judd Gregg
NBC News quote from Gregg (paraphrasing):
"I will not be a member of a team where I'm asked to block part time, or where I can only block part time. I will play on a team where I am asked to block full time."
All that talk of 'block' 'block' 'block'? Asked to block what and by whom? Was it by Boner and the other GOOPers, blocking Obama's plans, but the cat was about to slip out of the bag?
Oh, and NBC News commented that Gregg not joining the Cabinet was a loss to Obama in the 'bipartisan' debate, because the Cabinet was 'losing' (don't they mean 'not gaining'?) a Republican member (he was the nominee, not yet confirmed!), but not a word was spoken of the two other Republicans already sitting on the Cabinet.
Who says the media is liberal, specifically calling NBC liberal? Oh yeah, our resident GOOPer troglodyte trolls, among others.
Obama and his echo chamber of sycophants.
This man can't tolerate a single person with a different view of the world. He must be surrounded by like minded minions.
Change my ass. Bush II
soozie: I agree with others that the WH response was pretty harsh, but this is the big leagues; I have to wonder what has been going on behind the scenes. Can you imagine the BO reaction -- WTF? But of course, being BO, no such word would escape his lips -- that's why he has Rahm.
I (and other people) imagine Rahm Emmanuel as being something like Josh Lyman from Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing":
President Obama's a good man, he's got a good heart, he doesn't hold a grudge. That's what he pays me for.
Statler
Dean and Reich are both fine potential nominees. Also, I think that the Senator Judd Gregg fiasco will prove to be a turning point in the relationship between Democrats and Republicans.
For such a small publicity stunt, the Republican Congress has made it palatable for Democrats to exclude all but the most moderate Republicans from any agenda. Expect the filibuster threat to come up next, only to be CALLED AS A BLUFF when President Obama re-raises.
Republican Governors are more supportive than congressional Republicans. This is because they actually have to do something. Being the loyal opposition is less important when your own state has issues.
Conservatives have been politicizing the census for years, despite the fact that one of the main functions of the census is to collect demographic and population data that aids businesses in their strategic planning, marketing, and other matters.
Prior to the 2000 census the GOP fought against the use of sampling as one aspect of data collection. It won its main case because the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to determine the method of conducting the census, and because the court went along with a particular strained interpretation of the phrase "actual enumeration" in the Constitution (to imply counting one by one, not inferring statistically).
So without even looking at the basis of the GOP's claim that the executive branch is usurping the authority of the Congress in conducting the census, I can state with near absolute certainty that they are coming right back to the same constitutional clause. But guess what? There is a "law of the census," passed by Congress and signed by the president. And if that law is to be amended, guess who controls Congress now?
Mike in MD is a miserable person. What a pathetic douche!
I have this image of a smiling Rahm Emmanuel walking up to Gregg as his jaw swings open and his head flips back as if it were on hinges at the mandible, and then closing around Gregg's head with a loud chomp.
the only question is... does Emmanuel chew, spit, or swallow?
Are the authorities monitoring these pages? Is there any supervision?
There are laws being broken. Threats being made. I've never seen such vile and disgusting hatred. You liberals keep kicking and screaming and making some rather appalling statements about conservatives.
I think the proper authorities should be notified. And some of you should have your asses hauled off to jail!
Statler,
That is a terrible thing to say. You should be ashamed! You must be another pathetic liberal douche!
Awww geee,
Did somes GOOPer get hims feelings hurt?
Poor baby.
Did somes GOOPer get hims feelings hurt?
No, asswipe. I was just providing cover so I could suggest someone cut your head and limbs off, feed them to a hungry alligator in a swamp somewhere, and then give your beheaded and dismembered body to a horny baboon at the zoo.
The infestation of your (liberal) ideology in this great country is nauseating.
Your children (and children's children) should be executed in front of you and you should be forced to watch, even if that means taking a scalpel and removing your eyelids. Then you should be tortured by being burned and disembowled and castrated. You should then be put to a slow, painful death for your liberalism.
J the FV,
Well, the timing is the thing that gets me thinking. I kinda wish Gregg would have pulled this after his replacement had been seated, just to get him out of the game altogether. I wonder if he didn't go back to the Senate so he could vote against the Stimulus? Maybe McConnell is going to use this to try to lure Snowe, Collins and Specter back into the GOP fold?
Still, I am glad this didn't turn ugly later on, when Secretary Gregg would have had real responsibilities.
Most GOP Governors have little choice but to favor the Stim, although I'm sure their party wishes they would not. Fact is, most states are going broke right now. Even ones with a traditionally high tax base, like California, are facing severe budget shortfalls. I wonder how willing they would be to cross party lines were they not facing political starvation? Bringing a moderate GOP Governor in from the cold might make a fissure within the GOP larger. It could also result in the now GOP Secretary heeding the siren's call from Steele now that they no longer have constituencies that can boot them out of office after receiving an IOU instead of a tax return.
Obama's attempts at bipartisanship are worthy ones, and are partly responsible for his high approval ratings. the GOP's resistance to those efforts are partly to blame for their low approval numbers. While all of this is very nice for 2010, it sucks for the First 100 Days, upon which a President's effectiveness is measured.
So Obama wins a little and loses a little from this. Personally, I think it's a sideshow, and it detracts from the substantive work that needs to be done. As this is what the electorate will ultimately judge him and the Democrats by in 2010/2012, I would rather he put the sideshow aside for a moment and get past the nominations stage and onto the policy stage.
Top do that, he needs to appoint people that will cause him no more grief than he has already had to endure. As such, Reich and Dean have potential to perform well in their posts, elevate the stature (pun on Mr Reich intended) of Mr Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and most importantly, get some shit done.
And there is a whole lot of shit that needs doing-we're in over our ears, so the time for the synchronized swimming competition is over, and it's time to get all Michael Phelps.
Bhong optional.
I thought the statement was blunt, that's all. Kicks in the balls involve unfair shots. This one wasn't.
Statler
This is why Senate Clinton resigned her Senate Seat AFTER she was confirmed as Secretary of State.
You just do not take chances with a Senate Seat.
Mad Hatter...
Hello pot, this is kettle.
Might want to read your ideological posts that contain very little factual information, and are pretty heavy on the veiled threats... and then look up "libel". While you are at it... please use your head before spouting off some vile BS. I know you can do something better than what you've posted so far here.
Mad Hatter,
Read the First Amendment and shut the hell up. You want to live in a country where you can't speak ill of anyone in government, move to Turkmenistan or North Korea.
Mad Hatter, STFU. This is easily the most civil political website out there. You should read some of the bile wingnuts post regularly on the conservative whackjob website Free Republic. They had to lock at least 5 threads about President Obama's grandmother dying because of the sick comments being posted.
Methinks the Hatter doth protest too much, but at least he's not hawking currency-defacing stamps.
Mark
Point taken. Both sides seem culpable to some extent. I'm guessing there's much behind the scenes here.
According to TPM's Matt Cooper, Gregg called New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) a few hours ahead of releasing his withdrawal statement to alert him. But the White House appeared blindsided by the Gregg withdrawal, according to various reports, so much so that some officials were first learning of the news from reporters.
A Democratic Hill staffer writes in:
It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate.
If the larger GOP strategy can be describe as putting all of their chips on "FAIL", this has to be seen as a significant addition to that pile, no?
@ Mad Hatter: And some of you should have your asses hauled off to jail!
Why, is that what happened to you after you got busted via your work IP address?
When you feed trolls, they grow stronger.
Feed the Hat Troll and soon we'll have Mule Rider-itis infecting this thread
So, Nate -- I suggest a statistical study to find out how long it takes for the comments to devolve into name-calling and threats. Is it the same for every topic? By day of the week? Can we plot when Mulerider and his ilk appear and avoid them? or is it just going to be moderated?
As for the righties attacking the lefties for presumed, assumed and entirely fictitious assaults, I have to say that is appears to me that they (a) protest too much, (b) are delicate little flowers who can't take what they dish out, (c) lack intellectual integrity (among other kinds), and (d) ought to go elsewhere to vent their collective spleens. For the most part this is an enjoyable, thoughtful venue....until the point when it isn't, which is always (to this reader of over a year) after the rightwing nutjobs and woonie-burgers elbow their way into the fray.
Mark
I was referring to your previous post. Sorry for any confusion.
Incidentally, as a high school teacher I have a pretty strong interest in civility. A post loner made a few days ago quoting Federalist 55 was stunningly apt. I repeat it here for anybody who cares.
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.
sooz,
The good news is that troll-itis has a very short latency period. Which means it burns it self out pretty quickly, and only a few threads die before the mode3rator starts them on a short course of moderation therapy.
The trolls you should really fear are not the Ebola-types like Mule Rider, but rather the HBV-types that inflict small amounts of damage over a sustained period, which builds up to an invariably fatal condition for the whole board.
Sorry, I'm studying myxomatosis right now for class, and my analogies will be somewhat flavored by that until Tuesday's exam :)
Obama to staff: "Idiots! I said I wanted you to get me JUDGE DREDD!"
If memory serves, Fark has an "Ignore" option that allows you to hide comments based on login ID. Is such a feature possible for fivethirtyeight?
Why, is that what happened to you after you got busted via your work IP address?
@ssmith
WTF?! Since when did I get busted?! And since when do I use my work computer to post on blogs?!
Know what you're talking about or STFU!!
@Mad Hatter
Know what you're talking about or STFU!!
Gregg had no choice .. when Obama took the census job away from him, he essentially neutered him. It is clear by now that Obama's aura of competence is collapsing as the dozen (thus far) amateur-hour follies are very disturbing.
Why are you baiting Mule Hatter?
It was just another Valentine's Day kiss off
The name is MAD Hatter!! Why is everyone here obsessed with mules??? I've seen one mentioned in like ten of the last fifteen posts!
Is that the animal representation for liberals?? Democrats are donkeys, so Liberals are mules??
The background story for the newbies:
Mule Rider was the login ID of a forum troll that periodically haunts 538. Mostly, he just hurls insults, death threats, and mindless gibberish. Only he posts 50 or sixty such posts one after the other on every thread.
Nate turned blog moderation on at several points allowing him to selectively admit certain comments and not allow others to be posted.
This usually gets Mr to go away for a week to a month, then he's back yet again.
Well, someone (commonly suspected to be MR) posted some nasty things on the Wikipedia page describing 538 about a month ago. This user didn't have a wiki account, so their IP address was posted as the username.
The IP was tracked back to a major business (I forget which), so people assumed it was MR and he was posting from his work computer.
The problem is, these people Do not know what a proxy server is for.
Which is why everyone thinks that MH is actually MR, and that MR was recently busted at work for using a work computer to blast 538 on Wikipedia. They also think they know approximately where MR worked, because Wikipedia tracked the IP address back to a particular business office.
Odds are? Mr doesn't even have a job. The people with the most time to spend on forum trolling? Teenage kids. Have you noticed that MR becomes more active during the breaks like Thanksgiving and Xmas? Probably will be right around Spring Break, too.
Why the IP address? Again, read up on what a proxy server does.
Agree with Statler Re. Dean and Reisch.
Still waiting for that apology for your Rochester Crack, though.
Petekent: Please DIAF
hey lol,
Sorry! never been to Minnesota. I just overheard someone saying that the area around Rochester was conservative as all hell
Nice story but this MH is no MR. I'm neither a teenage kid nor do I work for a "major business." I'm 38 and manage a car wash during the week while working for Sears tire and auto part-time on the weekends.
Thanks. It's not the best story I've ever written, but I like the plot construction, and I think I really got some good character development down this time. Needs a better ending, though.
Let me get this straight. Obama is supposed to replace Judd Gregg with Robert Reich??? Is there any policy vision here, or just freelance image building and constituency stroking. Amateur hour. If Reich is appointed, watch the Dow fall.
I'm not really up on the alphabet soup, but I sure am learning with this crowd...
BTW (see?!), loved the commerce secretary reference in the Lincoln speech....
LOL, yeah that was nice, sooz.
Hey, I think this story needs a plot twist. I kicked the idea around of making MR Nate's alter-ego, or evil twin, you know? It's a little overdone, though.
I want a nice surprise for a plot twist. Like maybe if MR turned out to be a drag queen, ala Crying Game.
Jeez SQ has so many facts wrong always
Gregg always announced he's not running in 10'
Nate only
no quinn
DD, that's it! You're a genius.
We'll make this an homage to 80's horror flicks. MR/MH are one int he same person, and they're actually a parasitic twin growing out the side of Sean's head! He hasn't noticed they're there yet because he wears his hair in dreadlocks that go down to the middle of his back.
What do you think? Maybe they have like little hands that reach out tot he keyboard when he's asleep from the side of his head.
MR/MH... you are now.. a parasitic twin!
DemocratDave said...
Gregg always announced he's not running in 10'
Then current NH Congressman Paul Hodes (Democrat, and presumed candidate for the NH Senate seat) was lying to Rachel when he stated "Gregg announced in November that he would be a candidate in 2010"?
one int he same person
A pet peeve of mine, but the phrase is:
One AND the same.
See:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/oneinsame.html
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/4/messages/767.html
A Reich appointment would torpedo the Dow for sure.
Well, technically, parasitic twins would be one in the same person... namely the host.
Hey PeteKent... Why not ask Rush to teach you how to spell? Or is it psell???
Mark
What did the DOW do the last time he was in a Presidential Cabinet? Oh, yeah, the time when people got merit increases and stock options at work, not when they fretted about keeping their jobs and being happy when they are personally not laid off this week.
Screwing up the economy AND the deficit. Mission accomplished, G.W.
I think I'll name my kid that, if I ever adopt one... Tao Jones. Maybe Dao Jones, but I think s/h'd have too many people misspelling it if I called him/her Dao.
Or I could call the kid Nasdaq. It's awfully hard to think of a put down that rhymes with Nasdaq.
Sad Sack
Shit.
When is Franken going to get a seat in the Senate. Is there anything a regular out-of-state voter can do?
Donate Money that's about it
Joe,
People want Obama to appoint those who they aren't afraid will screw them (over). A guy like Reich doesn't exactly inspire confidence on Wall Street, because he's a vocal proponent of wealth redistribution.
The Bush administration was terrible for the economy because Bush and his people clearly had no idea what they were talking about or what they were doing. Obama needs people who are knowledgeable (wonks), who speak confidently, and who aren't way fiscally liberal.
A little money in the right place can go a lot further than a lot of money in the wrong places. That might be the lesson we take away from this stimulus.
Mark,
Reich is a centrist. He embraces limited regulation of the market, not wealth redistribution. One very common tactic of the right wing is to conflate anything that resembles regulation as full blown communism.
It's all bullshit. Most of America sees such bloated rhetoric as bullshit, too, which is why they weren't that impressed with Phil Gramm's job as McCain's economic advisor or Sarah Palin's hyperbolics.
Reich has stated that he favors protections for small businesses and working families. A union does not equal the Soviet Union, except in the pill-addled mind of Rush Limbaugh.
You know something, when you shoot off at the mouth like that and accuse every moderate of being an extreme leftist, it implies that you are to the extreme right of the centrist whom you mock. I'm not going to call you a fascist or anything, but you do project yourself as an extremist by claiming that anyone to the left of Jean-Marie Le Pen is a Communist.
Enough equivocation. Cite your sources if you're going to make a claim so wild that no sober mind would believe it. And ask Rush to pass you a Xanax. I'm sure he's got plenty to spare.
Of course this has to do with the 2010 census. You heard the RNC's new plan. We lost in 2008 bad. Let's win through redistricting.
Seriously. Go to the website and read it. It's sick.
Statler,
Reich is not a moderate. He's pretty far left fiscally, and I just don't believe in his approach to economics. And I think his approach would hurt the economy, and I don't think it would inspire confidence on Wall Street.
I'd like him to be on a White House economic advisory group (one of the many they have), because I don't think the POV he represents should be shut out, but I would prefer someone closer to the center, a little less negative on the idea of free markets, for the Cabinet. That's all.
Obama should pick up the Eric Schmidt for Commerce. I'm not sure he'd do it but who knows.
While Bush may or may not have known what they were talking about, the fact of the matter when it comes to his administration, they were reading from the same playbook. (Or hymnal, in the case of some of them). They were supply-siders, true believers in Say's law and the ability of the market to correct its own problems.
The American Public has continually rejected straight-forward supply-side economics since the Great Depression, minus a quick dabble in the early years of President Reagan's first term. Instead, neo-conservatives "brag" about their plan to strangle the social safety net put in place by FRD by reducing taxes without comparable reductions in services, leading to deficits. These deficits will "force" people to reject the New Deal, according to Republican Economic beliefs.
Since they know that most Americans like the social safety net and a well-regulated financial system, they continually pick away at the very protections that people want, hoping to confuse the masses with shiny baubles and reap the benefits of the very crisis they created. They seek to turn one group upon the other, while aggregating wealth amongst the richest and most powerful.
They also spread lies about previous stimulus packages and use anecdotal evidence in lieu of empirical proof. Japan's lost decade? Prolonged because the did not spend as much on stimulus as they claimed AND they did not have financial reform to eliminate the bad debt based upon over-inflated property values. There are various other fallacious memes about Keynes from those that do not want an active middle and lower class, that do not want economic growth for those groups.
J the FV,
Indeed. Trickle down economics never seem to trickle down.
It is truly ironic that the bailout is not seen as income redistribution-it redistributed the wealth of the working class to the upper class. I guess in the minds of some, this sort of welfare is perfectly acceptable-so long as you do not attach any strings to the handouts.
It seems to make perfect sense to them to say that a woman on welfare has to document every expenditure, can have it restricted to just food and nothing else, and has to be carefully monitored. But a Wall Street banker can blow it all on a wild weekend at a hotel in LA.
Total deregulation is seen buy these extremists (like Mark) as being the only acceptable economic theory. we're just supposed to ignore the Wall Street collapse that was created by deregulation. That never happened. Just think about how soothing Reagan's voice was, and forget that the Banks went Bust.
Well, the upside is they'll lose even more seats if they keep playing up the extremism. Obama's greatest asset is the way he keeps turning that other cheek and reaching out to the GOP, doing the bipartisan thing even when they won't reciprocate.
The image we the electorate receive is one where the Dems look like they're reasonable, cool-headed and tolerant to a fault, while the GOP is alienating, unwilling to listen or work with others, delusional to the point where they cannot see the catastrophic effects of their own policies-both on their party and the country, aggressive, greedy, and prone to temper tantrums.
You know what the difference between a dictator and a crazy homeless guy is? The dictator has followers. That's about it.
And as the GOP continues to project this image of hostility and alienation, the number of followers they attract declines. If they go all the way, they can become crazy homeless people :)
We'll be there to give them shelter and mental health counseling and food and all those social programs they so despise, catch even the people that hate us the most when they fall. It's so easy to do like they do and spit insults at the opposition, so much harder to do what Obama does and show patience.
But I guess that's why we elected him.
Statler,
Just because I'm not an advocate of dismantling the upper class (of which I am decidedly NOT a member), spending for the sake of spending, placing vital industries under federal ownership, or giving handouts to those who will squander them (whether they're willfully unemployed or corporate bigwigs doesn't concern me) doesn't mean I'm for total deregulation. I never said anything supportive of total deregulation, so please don't misrepresent my position in order to tag me as an "extremist".
Watching the John Sununu interview on "The Daily Show" right now - my impression is that neither party can claim a moral high ground. The Republicans criticize the Democrats for wanting to spend so much money after five years of massive spending on the Iraq invasion and occupation, and all the Democrats can retort with is to point that out. "You spent like drunkards for the past few years - now it's our turn!"
Iraq happened. It shouldn't have happened, and we should be trying every way of ending it responsibly and swiftly and with as little expenditure as we can get away with without being callous, but it happened, and those hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent (or jettisoned into the desert, or whatever the past administration and their Pentagon did with them). The Republicans have no room to act like they're more fiscally responsible, and the Democrats can't just keep using Iraq as an excuse for their own massive deficit spending.
It's just politics as usual, which means intellectual dishonesty out the wazoo. Unfortunately.
Mark, one of the reasons why the far Right has been so powerful in this country since 1980 is because there are essentially two income levels in America- The Rich, and People Who Think Someday They Will Be Rich.
Even though Wall Street Tycoons like John Thain raped taxpayers for millions of dollars which he spent on ridiculous shit, there are thousands of low-to-middle income Republicans who look at that and think, "Yeah, some day, I'll have a heated sidewalk too".
Optimism has served America very well. It's the driving force behind the inventiveness that has made us prosperous to a degree where now middle-income Americans live better than European nobles did back int eh colonial era. It's also why we work much harder than the rest of the world and for fewer benefits. We don't agitate for the same rights that workers in other countries have, since we all like to think we're going to be corporate CEO's someday, and we don't want a law around when we get there that will say we can only have 3 private jets because of a salary cap instead of 20.
Have you bothered to notice how many of the people around you with the same stars you have in your eyes actually get rich enough to worry about how many jets they own? It's kind of like lottery tickets. You know only one in 7 million tickets will hit the big jackpot-and you believe with all your heart that you're going to be the one that buys that ticket.
I used to work at a gas station that sold scratch tickets. I would see these guys come in, day after day, at 5:15 in a massive flood, just to spend all the money they earned that day on lottery tickets. They were all convinced they'd hit the big one, and trying to tell them any different was a waste of time. None of them ever did.
Now, by the math, for 1 ticket in 7 million to win, that means 699,999 tickets have to lose. Likewise, for every corporate CEO that walks off with a massive bailout without any restrictions, there's billions of Americans that have to pay the taxes that these corporate assholes are using to fuel that fleet of privately owned jets. Those are hard working people, who go to work for lower wages than their European counterparts make, for less benefits, with far less time off, and often without any benefits at all. Just so one asshole can maintain a fleet of privately owned jets.
I'm not saying we should take those jets from them. I'm saying the American people should not be forced to hand it to them to begin with. There should be regulations ont he market to keep major corporations from exploiting people. You should have to pay people a living wage, and people should be able to get healthcare. Instead of handing over a massive bonus to the CEO of Goldman Sachs, let's take that money and build a public hospital so the hard working American people can get healthcare when they need it. Let's put that money into fixing our roads so they don't kill themselves on their way to work. Let's make sure their kids have enough food to eat and a place to sleep and a school that isn't falling apart at the seams.
Maybe someday you will get your fleet of corporate jets, I don't know. I wish you luck in that endeavor. But I will not let 699,999 lives get thrown away just so 1 person can have a fleet of jets.
A human life is worth exactly the same as any other human life. And if you are extremely lucky-either because you were born rich or you won that ever so elusive lottery ticket-your life is still worth the same as it was when you were poor. To spare one life of all pain and to damn 699,999 others to misery is far from equitable.
And I will fight you very step of the way if you try it.
Now if only that asshat summers didn't set economic policy!
Mark, that's the principle difference between us. You look at Iraq and you see massive deficit spending.
I see 4,165 dead American kids, same age as the two of us.
And for what? WMD? There weren't any. So we could capture Saddam? He's been dead for a while now-why are we still in Iraq if the mission was just to kill Saddam, who is already dead? To stabilize the country politically? You know something, even your famed surge did not stabilize the country politically. They are not a Western style Democracy like you intended. Even the last election was considered a success, besides the fact that people couldn't even vote because too dangerous to even set up polling stations int hose districts to vote in. They don't want us there, but you insisted on staying the course.
Yeah, we are different. All you can see is the money. I see 42 hundred dead American bodies that look an awful lot like me. And that's the real waste.
Sean,
Nice try to change the topic headline. Nobody is saying that Obama dropped Gregg. Your are a friggin idiot. Get a grip. You are an embarassment.
I like Reich. To me his views sound like something resembling reality as opposed to a contrived political position After eight (or more) years of pure fantasy, reality sounds like a good place to start.
The Real Price of the Iraq War
Statler
You are talking to talking points. Who says Democrats want to spend "because its our turn"? It is the classic flawed use of Aristolean logic, the false syllogism, that is being used to take our eyes off the prize.
This Mainer-in-Exile is quite familiar with the smiling New Hampshire school of Ayn Rand Republicans. For those of you NOT from New England, New Hampshire is the state where all the right-wing whackjobs move to from the other 5 New England states. You can thank New Hampshire for George Bush's first term. Florida would not have mattered if New Hampshire did not go for Bush. But by 2004, the moderates swung back to reject the 2000 vote.
Senator Judd Gregg, as some have noted, is NOT a New England Republican, in the mode of Senator Snowe or Senator Collins. He is New England by geography, but nowhere near being a moderate.
I felt uneasy when he was nominated. I am glad the Trojan Horse was returned.
Statler
Not to mention god knows how many dead Iraqis.
Here's to truth and reconciliation on all fronts. What's the alternative?
One of the things I'm waiting for in the 2010 election is for ANY GOOPer candidate on record calling for less regulation to be called out on it.
There is one thing that will make the connection in the public's mind - a picture of the GOOPer candidate alongside some peanut butter.
Yes, Americans have a short attention span, but they WILL remember the salmonella in the peanut butter for years to come.
Interesting stat I recently saw (I think on CBS News) -
20 years ago, we had 70,000 facilities in the US that were involved in food production, today that number is 140,000.
20 years ago, we had 35,000 people involved in food inspection, today that number is 7,000.
So in 20 years we double the number of facilities involved in food production, but we have 20% of the inspectors we had 20 years ago. This means instead of 1 inspector per 2 facilities, we now have 1 inspector per 20 facilities.
Taft,
Yeah, there's them too. I think the Lancet ran an article a year or two back that said 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed up to that point because of the war.
You know something, I wonder how the human body can resist vomiting when the mouth says "I am pro-life" and then provokes the violent deaths of 42 hundred of your own people and over 100 thousand of someone else's.
Jack-be-[a klutz] said...
Sean,
Nice try to change the topic headline.
It did read "Obama Dumps Gregg -- Hard And Angry"
It now reads "Obama Dumps Gregg -- Hard And Angry"
The difference? None that I see.
Must be that Reich-wing Kool-Aid you're drinking.
And yes, everyone, I know - 'DNFTT', but this one was just too much male bovine dropping NOT to respond to.
Statler,
The point about Iraq is a complete straw man. Of course it kills me that so many people - and not just Americans, mind you - died for the previous administration's whim. It's a massive human tragedy. But that's not why I brought it up; I brought it up because in the context of the Sununu/Stewart argument, it was being used as an example of Republican fiscal irresponsibility.
Furthermore, I entertain no realistic notions of fabulous wealth. But I don't believe that wealthy entrepreneurs should pay a bigger cut than anyone else.
(I also don't believe, on a moral level, in CEOs getting such exorbitant salaries and exerting such control over the board of directors they supposedly report to - but that's not something I feel the government has the right to legislate against.)
Of course, in the context of an economic stimulus for working- and middle-class relief, I'd favor tax cuts on the non-rich first (the AMT and payroll taxes are far higher on my hit list than the luxury and estate taxes, for example) but I'd really just like a simpler tax system imposing a flat rate regardless of income level, and as low as possible still allowing the government to collect ESSENTIAL income for ESSENTIAL expenditures (paying off the deficit, providing interstate infrastructure, funding services [loosely defined], and maintaining a modest but potent defense [not offense]) since I know that when the government has extra money, it figures out ways of spending it, and those ways usually involve explosions and violations of sovereignty.
I hope I've made my positions more clear to you.
Here's more "liberal media bias" for you. Bob Shieffer (sp?) was on CBS evening news just about to explode with delight over how this turn of events means either there is something really whacky going on in the WH or that Gregg is just an incredibly "honest" guy. He also went on to say how this further tarnishes and damages the WH's credibility.
Um, excuse me? His take on this is that Gregg is incredibly honest? He believes that Gregg's actions somehow mean the WH's credibility should be questioned?
Yep, that left wing media bias is showing right through Bob's attempts at being objective.
Mark
So you are for a flat tax rate are you?
Does this mean you think the taxes for the majority of Americans should be substantially raised so that the tax rates for the most wealthy among us can be lowered?
Does this mean you would favor the elimination of tax loopholes, so that corporations would pay the same flat tax rate as everyone else instead of having effective tax rates of 0% as the do currently?
Or do you think we should just tax everyone at a benign rate of 10%. Sure we would not be able to afford our military arsenal, universities, social security, interstate highways, FDA, etc.. But I suppose that would be A O.K. for some. But if that is how you would like to live, there are a large number of developing countries that you could move to today to achieve utopia.
Bottom line - tax revenues facilitate the infrastructure and regulation that provide the foundation on which American enterprise can thrive. Kind of analogous to the coral in a reef ecosystem. If we were to tax everyone at the same rate and still pay the bills, everyone would have to pay 25-30% federal income taxes. Of course the poor would pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes because more (all) of their income is subject to payroll taxes. Talk about taxation without representation!
@ Saint Dude
Or do you think we should just tax everyone at a benign rate of 10%. Sure we would not be able to afford our military arsenal, universities, social security, interstate highways, FDA, etc.
By including Social Security in the list of government supported activities,you help perpetuate (inadvertently,I'm sure) the right wing lie that Social Security is a drain on government funds.It is,of course, financed by a special payroll tax and has nothing to do with the income tax.
SnW said:
"Mark, one of the reasons why the far Right has been so powerful in this country since 1980 is because there are essentially two income levels in America- The Rich, and People Who Think Someday They Will Be Rich."
nicely said- and very insightful.-
though I have to admit that I did not read the rest of the post- too long.
ps SnW thanks for the Franken links- good updates-I hope we are talking weeks and not months.
Mark,
I would argue that it is not a straw man, because you chose to frame the issue in terms of morality. Had you kept this discussion to that of fiscal responsibility alone, you would have been insulated from such an attack. You did not.
It is very easy for the right to claim the poor are poor due to moral failure. In an ideal universe (where I would very much like to live too) anyone that worked hard and applied themselves would become fabulously wealthy. Sadly, this is not the world in which we inhabit. Ours is a world where people remain in poverty not due to sloth, rather due to circumstance and corruption. We live in a world where most of those that have wealth were born into it, and there are very few of those when compared to the many who have little and always will.
Yes, we do have upward mobility in America. However, the playing field is far from level. A child born into a rich suburb with a high tax base attends a well appointed school with good teachers, current books, and AP classes in things like calculus and Japanese.
A child born in the inner city, which has a low tax base, goes to a school with metal detectors, heavy police presence, attends programs not designed to prepare them for college but rather to help them avoid being shot. The books are out of date, the teachers just don't care, and the building is falling apart.
At a very early age, two messages are sent to these different kids. The suburbanite is taught that the sky is the limit, and is well-armed to impress an employer. The urbanite is told from the earliest days that there is no point in even trying, and the best you can do is hope you'll be good enough at sports or music to get as far from the ghetto you were born into as you can. Since most aren't, the depressing reality sets in in short order.
As such, one cannot call this system equitable or even moral. Were it, the only barrier or avenue to success would be merit alone-all children would receive a good quality education regardless of their parents income level (of which the child has not control), and would have the same skills as everyone else upon entering the workforce. The reason why the military is made up of so many kids from low class urban backgrounds instead of wealthy suburbanites is because in the Army you at least stand a chance of success, providing you survive the war without any severe head injuries or mental damage. A small percentage chance, but it's greater than the inner city.
And yet you would attribute the circumstances of a child's birth to the morality of that child. As if they committed some great moral failing inside the womb that condemned them to a childhood where the education system is bad, the housing is inadequate, access to food is temporary thanks to TANFF (Bill Clinton, you fucked up on this one), and acess to healthcare is limited if your parents make too much to qualify you for SCHIP but not enough to affords insurance.
Since you are so cruel as to judge the ill behavior inside the womb for this child, let's discuss the greatest moral matter of all-life and death. I would contend, and perhaps you will disagree with me, that involuntarily separating a post-birth human being from their life is evil. In this case, things which the GOP have fought so hard to retain, such as the death penalty and war, are also evil by definition.
Which would make you evil for offering your tacit endorsement to the GOP's pet projects-killing prisoners and people in Iraq.
Do you really think you can say that the GOP is a moral body?
MinM-
Nice post on food regulation- got any links???
Saint Dude,
I support eliminating tax loopholes (no corporation or person should be able to get away with not paying anything), lowering the overall rate of income tax, and wiping out the AMT and payroll taxes. And I think we'd all be surprised how well the government could do with, say, 16% of everyone's paychecks if it wasn't spending trillions of dollars on wars, the military, foreign "aid", and pork projects. You might recall that for the majority of this county's existence, there was no such thing as a federal income tax except in times of emergency - and since the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, we haven't had any fewer or lesser economic crises, and we've had a lot more Americans butchered on overseas killing fields.
Statler,
Of course I don't see the GOP as a moral body. Their refusal to cooperate on the stimulus is a selfish political "Hail Mary" and I hope it backfires on them, even though I don't have faith that it will. Furthermore, I have done nothing but condemn the Iraq War and have offered no such "tacit endorsements" of Republican policies or incidents like Abu Ghraib or detainee abuse at Gitmo and other facilities. I supported Barack Obama last year, and I supported Ron Paul before him, explicitly for the reason that I believe we need change - politically, economically, and morally - from the Bush/Cheney-era status quo.
I think you must have me mixed up with someone else.
A truce then, if not an alliance. I believe we will achieve much more for the common and our mutual good by working together on improving the success of this Administration than by remaining at loggerheads.
think abramoff.
gregg's got more than a tough re-election to contend with. there's more to his reversal on this than has been reported.
Post a Comment