Paul did his best with the crowd showcasing his libertarian platform, which breaks from the GOP line on a number of key issues like drugs, where he favors more lenient penalties for nonviolent offenders, and foreign policy, where he favors a noninterventionist approach. He drew applause for calling for an end to mandatory sentences for drug crimes and laughs for talking about the hypocrisy of a country in which the previous two presidents experimented with drugs in their youth.Wheeee!!! He's a libertarian. When Bernie Sanders says the exact same thing he's an evil socialist commie America hater.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Rand Paul Vortex
My super favorite part of this story:
Just In: Tea Party Patriots Issue 2nd Apology For "Rove-As-Nazi" Picture Debacle - This Time To Offended Nazi Sympathizers
 |
| Apologies pile up |
Michael Matthew Bloomer reporting from Tea Party Patriots headquarters at 1025 Rose Creek Dr; STE 620-322, Woodstock, GA 30189. Wednesday, February 20, 2013.
Just minutes ago, the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) issued its second apology within a one hour period for a picture of Karl Rove dressed as a Nazi SS officer that appeared in their Tuesday fund-raising email.
Huffington Post reporter Lisa Miller wrote of their first apology this morning:
Tea Party Patriots co-founder and national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin in a fundraising solicitation. But Jameson Cunningham, a spokesperson for the group, said it was an unfortunate accident. "The image was a mistake which was never approved by TPP,” Cunningham told Politico. Martin later apologized, saying a vendor was responsible for the Nazi image.
“In an email sent under the banner of Tea Party Patriots, a manufactured image of Karl Rove was added to the email which Tea Party Patriots did not know about or approve," Martin said in an emailed statement. "The image, which was added by an outside vendor, Active Engagement, was inappropriate, wrong and we have ordered them to immediately cease further use of the image.Unfortunately, their initial apology did not appease all. After receiving nearly 10,000 complaints within thirty minutes from their own members and from other fellow travelers, TPP's boss, Jenny Beth Martin was again at the keyboard. Below is her newest apology:
TPP issues our sincere apology to all those who were in any way offended by our recent email which, through a contractor's error, featured a picture of Karl Rove as a Nazi SS officer. This, our second apology is to those who felt strongly that picturing Karl Rove as a Nazi SS officer was deeply insulting to the SS, and substantially tarnished their image.
We agree with that assessment. The exceptional immigration policies of the SS,
Road Trip
My favorite and bestest commentor (and Fold Blog contributor) Spinner made a good analogy about the state of government spending the other day. It was so good that frequent multiple personality disorder Kristen Billy left a Bravo! in reply. Now I admit, Spinner does a great job and his analogy on spending makes a good point.
Here is an analogy I hope makes it clear: while on your road trip to Vegas, your buddy was speeding along at 100 MPH when it was his turn to drive. Now that you are at the wheel, you are only going a few MPH faster, but get pulled over. Do you think the cop will care that it's only a bit faster than your buddy was going and is not "unprecedented" or "uncontrollable" when compared only as an increase over the previous speeds?Yet I'm not sure I can go along with it fully.
First of all, who's the cop? Is the GOP the cop or are the voters? I think I'm going to assume the voters are the cop. And the buddy sitting next to me is the GOP.
Not to take anything away from Spinner, but his analogy doesn't quite encompass what's happening. He comes close. He just leaves out a few quick details. Here is a much better version of that same analogy:
My buddy GOP took over the car on a trip to Vegas while it was traveling at 50mph. He immediately went nuts, started doing all sorts of irresponsible stuff, stuff that he claimed he was totally against a few miles back and then claimed that it all was okay because his grand daddy Ronnie proved speeds didn't matter. He increased the speed to 100mph and after miles of erratic driving with the tank almost on empty it was, rather unfortunately, my turn to drive. Before I could even fasten my seat belt, my buddy GOP went berserk and started yelling and screaming that my speeds were way too fast, that it was uncontrollable, that I had put the car on a path of total destruction. He lied that everything I was doing was "unprecedented" and that if I didn't stop speeding and listen to him and do everything he wanted that it all was going to blow up in a really bad way.
Then the cop pulls us over. Of course the cop is not going to care that my buddy is nuts. But none of this is about the cop. It's about the person in the passenger seat all of a sudden complaining about speeding and making up lies just so he can get back in the drivers seat. Essentially, it's about him wanting to drive again.
Unlike the cop, the voters have been in the car with us the whole time. They remember well just how we got to 100mph and how then it was all okay. But as soon as we switched drivers, speeds became a huge concern. The only shot my buddy GOP has at getting back in the drivers seat is to lie and pretend to the voters that it was all under control when he was driving. Never mind the speeds, he was doing it for the country as a whole, for the freedom of the open road. It's only now that he's not driving that freedom is in doubt. If he can convince the voters of that charade, then he gets back behind the wheel again. It's going to take a lot of convincing, a lot of backseat voter amnesia and a lot of lying from my buddy. But it's entirely possible.
Top 10 Mitt Romney Thoughts After Donald Trump's Endorsement
Contributor Michael M. Bloomer produced this while at the movie, Hugo.
Visualizing Romney's "Safety Net" For The Poor
Contributed by Michael Bloomer while locked in a closet by his beloved wife, Sue
In a fit of what can only be viewed as overconfidence after his win in the Florida primary last week, Mitt Romney accidentally told the truth on CNN the day after his win. His signal - in every sense of the word - quote:
In his remarkable quote, too, he demonstrates what everyone on the left has known all along, and what even the right wing of the GOP is now realizing: Mitt Romney believes that the "safety net" is a good enough place to be. He simply has no informed sense that life in the safety net is desperate, heartbreaking, and usually inescapable. In this, Romney is aristocratically tempered; he's not merely tone deaf, he's stone deaf. Stone deaf to nearly 20% of the population is not a good characteristic in a United States President, particularly as we move ever closer to the edge of a revolutionary precipice.
Romney, though, is utterly astounding, in a very bad way. He's banal. Unlike Newt, there's, nothing fancy about him, nothing Gingrichian in rabidness. Unlike Paul or Santorum, Mitt's boring about the poverty thing, he simply cannot think "poor," cannot will up legitimate or sincere concern.
Wondering about that attribute the other day, I put together my image of what Romney - and the other GOP candidates - might actually conceive as a laissez faire "safety net." Gazing through the lens of their dog eat dog world view, it's a dark image indeed.
In a fit of what can only be viewed as overconfidence after his win in the Florida primary last week, Mitt Romney accidentally told the truth on CNN the day after his win. His signal - in every sense of the word - quote:
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."The simple fact is, of course, that Governor Romney has endorsed draconian budget cuts that would rip that net to shreds. He also spent a great deal of time at Bain Capital as a financial finagler hatching deals that fairly often added to the "very poor" population.
In his remarkable quote, too, he demonstrates what everyone on the left has known all along, and what even the right wing of the GOP is now realizing: Mitt Romney believes that the "safety net" is a good enough place to be. He simply has no informed sense that life in the safety net is desperate, heartbreaking, and usually inescapable. In this, Romney is aristocratically tempered; he's not merely tone deaf, he's stone deaf. Stone deaf to nearly 20% of the population is not a good characteristic in a United States President, particularly as we move ever closer to the edge of a revolutionary precipice.
Romney, though, is utterly astounding, in a very bad way. He's banal. Unlike Newt, there's, nothing fancy about him, nothing Gingrichian in rabidness. Unlike Paul or Santorum, Mitt's boring about the poverty thing, he simply cannot think "poor," cannot will up legitimate or sincere concern.
Wondering about that attribute the other day, I put together my image of what Romney - and the other GOP candidates - might actually conceive as a laissez faire "safety net." Gazing through the lens of their dog eat dog world view, it's a dark image indeed.
Newt's Very Good Day: Trump Endorses Romney!
Contributor Michael M. Bloomer wrote this in bed.
And we think we've got troubles? Consider for a moment the plight of Mitt Romney, the once nearly presumptive 2012 GOP Presidential candidate. Not so nearly presumptive lately despite his big win over Newt Gingrich in last Tuesday's Florida primary. Mitt's been roughed up lately. His comments about the "very poor" have been grist for the journalistic mill for both left and right. From Reverend Al to Limbaugh. Now that's bipartisan. Added to his more and more criticized ties to Bain Capital, and his 2011 income taxes (so very reluctantly released for examination), Mitt's in a funk of decline ever nearer the defeat from the jaws of victory zone.
And now! Now, when he needs a break, fer God's sake, here comes the Clown Pope of New York, Donald Trump, erecting his Las Vegas circus tent to celebrate his tapping of Mitt Romney as his favored one! Ut serve. For Romney, now identified more closely than ever with the upper 1% of the upper 1% of moneybags, Trump's sponsorship can only make that even worse for him, much worse. And imagine the Romney camp trying doing fire brigade for both Romney and Trump? Wow! Fasten your seat belts! Worst endorsement ever?
How does Mitt really feel about this, one wonders?
And could even Newt's oddball imagination imagine that today would be such a very good day?
And we think we've got troubles? Consider for a moment the plight of Mitt Romney, the once nearly presumptive 2012 GOP Presidential candidate. Not so nearly presumptive lately despite his big win over Newt Gingrich in last Tuesday's Florida primary. Mitt's been roughed up lately. His comments about the "very poor" have been grist for the journalistic mill for both left and right. From Reverend Al to Limbaugh. Now that's bipartisan. Added to his more and more criticized ties to Bain Capital, and his 2011 income taxes (so very reluctantly released for examination), Mitt's in a funk of decline ever nearer the defeat from the jaws of victory zone.
And now! Now, when he needs a break, fer God's sake, here comes the Clown Pope of New York, Donald Trump, erecting his Las Vegas circus tent to celebrate his tapping of Mitt Romney as his favored one! Ut serve. For Romney, now identified more closely than ever with the upper 1% of the upper 1% of moneybags, Trump's sponsorship can only make that even worse for him, much worse. And imagine the Romney camp trying doing fire brigade for both Romney and Trump? Wow! Fasten your seat belts! Worst endorsement ever?
How does Mitt really feel about this, one wonders?
And could even Newt's oddball imagination imagine that today would be such a very good day?
Being Wrong and the Memory Hole
Paul Krugman makes a good point that people who often make dire economic predictions are rarely held accountable. Sometimes, as Krugman notes, they are even promoted and treated as if their inaccurate dire warnings were never made in the first place.
This is true in a lot ways actually. But what Krugman doesn't understand is that the Memory Hole is an easy way out of such a mess. If I'm not mistaken, Krugman invented the term Memory Hole so how he overlooks it is comical.
In this era of 24/7 news coverage and constant streaming videos, one would think that inaccuracy about important matters like the economy would be a career killer. Quite opposite actually, especially if you are really good at being wrong. Heck there's even an entire network devoted solely to being wrong, Fox News. They embrace such inaccuracies and proudly blare them to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pride thing for them. Being wrong isn't what it used to be.
This is true in a lot ways actually. But what Krugman doesn't understand is that the Memory Hole is an easy way out of such a mess. If I'm not mistaken, Krugman invented the term Memory Hole so how he overlooks it is comical.
In this era of 24/7 news coverage and constant streaming videos, one would think that inaccuracy about important matters like the economy would be a career killer. Quite opposite actually, especially if you are really good at being wrong. Heck there's even an entire network devoted solely to being wrong, Fox News. They embrace such inaccuracies and proudly blare them to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pride thing for them. Being wrong isn't what it used to be.
It's Not About Policy Anymore, and Never Really Was
Along the same lines of a post I wrote yesterday, I'm surprised to see some progressive bloggers missing the point of the president finally playing some politics.
Yglesias writing about his displeasure with President Obama blaming too much a focus on policy:
One of the best lines I ever heard from President Clinton was in 2004 when he was asked he how handled all of the attacks against him. He answered, when they hit me, I hit back.
That's how it works. That's politics the old way. It's probably politics the only way. If you expect it any other way, you're sorely mistaken. Hope for it to get better, maybe even try a couple things to help change it. But if you want to win elections, you don't get points for making your opponents look like willing equals. You win elections by making your opponents look like willing executioners. Bill Clinton, for all his policy wonkishness, was a master politician long before he ever cared about policy. Not to mention, you don't get to write policy unless you win. And you don't win by picking your opponent up off the ground.
If you think for one minute if Republicans win the White House next year that they will give one ounce of consideration to Democratic ideas, you're an idiot. I mean that in every sense of the word too. The last thing they will do is focus on bipartisan policy. You either play the game or go home. Ain't nobody gonna change it, I absolutely guarantee that.
*Update:
Well, well, well...I see Whiskey Fire actually has a set of balls.
Yglesias writing about his displeasure with President Obama blaming too much a focus on policy:
This is not the first time I’ve seen the president quoted as expressing those views, and I’ve heard similar things myself from his lips. The invocations of Carter and Clinton, if anything, seem to me to illustrate what’s wrong with it. Clinton succeeded precisely because he was a policy wonk.I have to disagree. Bill Clinton succeeded precisely because he was a master politician. Not to cut him down on his policy skills because he surely had that too. But his political ability is unmatched by anyone alive today. Clinton played politics. He played it the old way. He won. He wasn't afraid to benefit from his opponents being wrong. And he certainly wasn't afraid to kick them while they were down.
One of the best lines I ever heard from President Clinton was in 2004 when he was asked he how handled all of the attacks against him. He answered, when they hit me, I hit back.
That's how it works. That's politics the old way. It's probably politics the only way. If you expect it any other way, you're sorely mistaken. Hope for it to get better, maybe even try a couple things to help change it. But if you want to win elections, you don't get points for making your opponents look like willing equals. You win elections by making your opponents look like willing executioners. Bill Clinton, for all his policy wonkishness, was a master politician long before he ever cared about policy. Not to mention, you don't get to write policy unless you win. And you don't win by picking your opponent up off the ground.
If you think for one minute if Republicans win the White House next year that they will give one ounce of consideration to Democratic ideas, you're an idiot. I mean that in every sense of the word too. The last thing they will do is focus on bipartisan policy. You either play the game or go home. Ain't nobody gonna change it, I absolutely guarantee that.
*Update:
Well, well, well...I see Whiskey Fire actually has a set of balls.
The reason Obama is in trouble is because too many people don't have jobs, and one of the reasons too many people don't have jobs is that the asshole commentariat thinks "unity of purpose" is more important than "jobs."
What is batshit here is that Keller is utterly oblivious to his own role in this nonsensical disaster. Obama is a creature of the Sensible Consensus. He is the Bill Keller President.You'd be surprised how much unity is created when people have money in their pockets. You think Clinton unified any sort of purpose? Heck no. But unemployment was 4.6% and that's all anyone cared about. Go unify your tree hugging doggy day-camp friends and leave the rest of us alone.
Everybody Knows, except the people calling the shots
I've long read Atrios, who I believe goes by Duncan Black when he's not on the internets, for his quick summation of very important items. No one can quite take a huge, boring paragraph of needlessness and shrink it down to one sentence better than him. He's superb at what he does. He also probably is clueless when it comes to politics.
Now I don't mean writing about politics. I mean working in politics. Many of you might not realize it but there is a huge difference between writing about politics and working in politics. I've done both. And it's much easier to write about politics, trust me. Again, don't get me wrong, Atrios does a heck of a job writing about politics. Maybe the best in the biz. But he's never actually worked in politics and never been in a position where he has to choose between listening to a union boss, the party chairman, a central committee person, a single mom on welfare or your chief of staff. When you get in a position like that, and you can only choose one, you end up making a lot of people mad. Alas, that's how it goes. That is the nature of modern American politics. Surely Atrios knows all that and I don't mean to hippy-punch him too much. I just felt the need to note that those who usually make a living off of being critical have never had to do the job they so criticize.
With all that said, Atrios pens one of the greatest analyses of our day and he does it with one sentence: "If you make the case that Republican issues are important, you're making the case for...Republicans."
Alright, so maybe not ever working in politics has made him a much better adviser than anyone else currently working at the White House. Somebody please listen to this guy...
Now I don't mean writing about politics. I mean working in politics. Many of you might not realize it but there is a huge difference between writing about politics and working in politics. I've done both. And it's much easier to write about politics, trust me. Again, don't get me wrong, Atrios does a heck of a job writing about politics. Maybe the best in the biz. But he's never actually worked in politics and never been in a position where he has to choose between listening to a union boss, the party chairman, a central committee person, a single mom on welfare or your chief of staff. When you get in a position like that, and you can only choose one, you end up making a lot of people mad. Alas, that's how it goes. That is the nature of modern American politics. Surely Atrios knows all that and I don't mean to hippy-punch him too much. I just felt the need to note that those who usually make a living off of being critical have never had to do the job they so criticize.
With all that said, Atrios pens one of the greatest analyses of our day and he does it with one sentence: "If you make the case that Republican issues are important, you're making the case for...Republicans."
Alright, so maybe not ever working in politics has made him a much better adviser than anyone else currently working at the White House. Somebody please listen to this guy...
Pew Research Center Political Typology Test
I can't seem to find any embed codes on this political typology test so I'll just post a screen shot of my results.
To enlarge it just click on the image. It says I scored as a New Coalition Democrat.
I've never heard the term actually. If it means I'm a new kind of Democrat then I'm not so sure of that. If it means I'm a moderate Dem then sure I agree with that.
What's interesting about the results is it lets you compare your group to others on certain issues. The whole thing takes about a minute and worth checking out, just to see if you fall where you think you might. I think where I differ and what surprises me most is my relationship to the New Coalition Democrats and social issues.
34% favor allowing gays to marry
71% favor gun control
56% favor keeping marijuana illegal
I don't fit into those at all. I support allowing gays to marry. I support 2nd Amendment right to own guns and believe it's more important than controlling guns. I also support legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm surprised that "New Democrats" would be opposed to all that, especially gay marriage and pot.
To enlarge it just click on the image. It says I scored as a New Coalition Democrat.
I've never heard the term actually. If it means I'm a new kind of Democrat then I'm not so sure of that. If it means I'm a moderate Dem then sure I agree with that.
What's interesting about the results is it lets you compare your group to others on certain issues. The whole thing takes about a minute and worth checking out, just to see if you fall where you think you might. I think where I differ and what surprises me most is my relationship to the New Coalition Democrats and social issues.
34% favor allowing gays to marry
71% favor gun control
56% favor keeping marijuana illegal
I don't fit into those at all. I support allowing gays to marry. I support 2nd Amendment right to own guns and believe it's more important than controlling guns. I also support legalizing marijuana. I guess I'm surprised that "New Democrats" would be opposed to all that, especially gay marriage and pot.
Let the Reading Begin
Democrats to join the Patriotic Republicans in reading of the Constitution on the House floor. I wonder if they are going to read the parts of the Constitution Republicans don't believe in and the parts they want repealed?
Basic Sanity is Still a Goal (*Update)
When you hear people say there is a huge gap separating the two major political parties nowadays, it's really quite the understatement. Quite possibly it may be all together inaccurate to say such a thing. What we have is not ideological separation or even an ideal separation, it's a basic sanity separation.
Being able to communicate with anyone requires a simple yet basic understanding of certain knowledgeable attainments. If two people speak different languages they are incomprehensible to each other. The same is true if people have a completely different set of realistic perceptions on a subject matter. Even if two people speak the same language if they don't agree on the most basic understanding of the conversation they aren't going to get very far. And that's what we have happening today in our political discourse.
It's not that people have to agree on the solution or even the problem. But they have to agree on the existence of the tangibles involved. That's where the breakdown is occurring. That's where the notion of "basic sanity" becomes essential to discussion.
Reaching some limit of a basic sanity in this country so we can actually agree to discuss the merits rather than the conspiracy theories is still a goal yet so far unattainable.
*Update:
For a perfect example of what I mean check out this comment thread. Billy, Shanks, Guest, Rachel, and now Kristen, or whatever multiple personality he's suffering from at the moment, no doubt lives in a parallel universe. It's a universe where the Bush tax cuts did not cause deficits, where we've spent more on education than Iraq, (which is absurd), and where Bush was a popular president. You can't have a conversation about substantive policies that will benefit this country with people who refuse reality. You just can't do it. You can't just make stuff up and pretend Glenn Beck is an actual political contributor to this country and expect to get things done. There has to come a time when basic sanity is reached. And we're no where near that right now.
Being able to communicate with anyone requires a simple yet basic understanding of certain knowledgeable attainments. If two people speak different languages they are incomprehensible to each other. The same is true if people have a completely different set of realistic perceptions on a subject matter. Even if two people speak the same language if they don't agree on the most basic understanding of the conversation they aren't going to get very far. And that's what we have happening today in our political discourse.
It's not that people have to agree on the solution or even the problem. But they have to agree on the existence of the tangibles involved. That's where the breakdown is occurring. That's where the notion of "basic sanity" becomes essential to discussion.
Reaching some limit of a basic sanity in this country so we can actually agree to discuss the merits rather than the conspiracy theories is still a goal yet so far unattainable.
*Update:
For a perfect example of what I mean check out this comment thread. Billy, Shanks, Guest, Rachel, and now Kristen, or whatever multiple personality he's suffering from at the moment, no doubt lives in a parallel universe. It's a universe where the Bush tax cuts did not cause deficits, where we've spent more on education than Iraq, (which is absurd), and where Bush was a popular president. You can't have a conversation about substantive policies that will benefit this country with people who refuse reality. You just can't do it. You can't just make stuff up and pretend Glenn Beck is an actual political contributor to this country and expect to get things done. There has to come a time when basic sanity is reached. And we're no where near that right now.
Politics of Pay Freeze
Stupid because it's a gimmick. The $2 billion it will save in the budget will take a $1.3 trillion deficit to a $1.29 trillion deficit. Accomplishes nothing, neither long term or short. It's also stupid because it will do nothing to get Republicans, who are about to takeover the House, to compromise on one single issue. Stupid, too, because it once again alienates the president's base, as if he needs any more of that. Stupid, finally, because there will be hundreds of loopholes where high level federal employees will get pay raises and then the administration will look incompetent, if not crooked.
On the other hand, it's smart, very smart politics. I see this as pure Clintonian. What did Clinton do right after being impeached? Oh yeah, he reignited the whole star wars program, which is simply a huge Republican spending bill but who cares about deficits? Clinton was a master at taking other people's proposals and making them his, and then turning the whole thing back around on them.
Let's face it, Republicans are and were never going to do anything about the deficit or spending in the first place. If somehow they were able to take over the presidency tomorrow we would never hear another word about the budget, our huge debt or the deficit that they created. It would all be forgotten in a nanosecond. The politics of the pay freeze puts Republicans on the spot for a plan they have been claiming to support for at least 20 months now. It also gives off the appearance that Obama is willing to accept Republican plans and work on a bipartisan level to help solve the budget crisis. How will Republicans return the favor? They won't. But the appearance is all that matters.
Freezing pay will do nothing to solve the deficit problem. It will also do nothing to stimulate anything. It may, in fact, be harmless, totally. That alone makes it worth the president's while. This move is simply about politics. Probably over the head of most progressives and liberals, simply because they see it as the president caving for yet another GOP proposal. That's the point.
One Day the Whole World Will Be Carpeted and Republicans Will Do the Cleaning
Interestingly, while filling in for Andrew Sullivan, Conor Friedersdorf realizes that Matt Yglesias doesn't necessarily want to grow government just for the sake of growing government. Instead, it's possible those who do not consider themselves Republican and/or conservative are actually not liberal hippies that stroke off daily to thoughts of Big Government.
This is a topic I talk about frequently perhaps not necessarily on the blog. A few weeks ago I wrote that the size of government is irrelevant. People care more about efficiency than about size. On a political level, those that are left of center tend to care more about policy achieving a desired result than about the size of government. And those on the right tend to care more about how policy affects the size of government than about about a desired result from the policy.
The problem with all that is none of it is true. People on the left really don't care about government growing or shrinking. Whereas people on the right merely only want to talk about shrinking government. Steve Benen says it like this. "The liberal worldview is not about necessarily increasing the size of government or raising taxes; those mechanisms are only valuable insofar as they reach the desired end-point. For the right, it's the other way around -- the ideological goal is the desired end-point." Except for the fact that the right has never achieved their desired goal, or even come close to shrinking government, I'd say Steve is about right.
Then we have to consider it's not even accurate to claim people on the right want to shrink government as an ideology. If they do subscribe to such ideology, they've never once governed that way. In fact, when given ample opportunity to govern, they did nothing but enormously grow government. Whereas on the left, policy objectives have both shrunk government and grown government proving the left cannot possibly be labeled as Big Government.
This is a topic I talk about frequently perhaps not necessarily on the blog. A few weeks ago I wrote that the size of government is irrelevant. People care more about efficiency than about size. On a political level, those that are left of center tend to care more about policy achieving a desired result than about the size of government. And those on the right tend to care more about how policy affects the size of government than about about a desired result from the policy.
The problem with all that is none of it is true. People on the left really don't care about government growing or shrinking. Whereas people on the right merely only want to talk about shrinking government. Steve Benen says it like this. "The liberal worldview is not about necessarily increasing the size of government or raising taxes; those mechanisms are only valuable insofar as they reach the desired end-point. For the right, it's the other way around -- the ideological goal is the desired end-point." Except for the fact that the right has never achieved their desired goal, or even come close to shrinking government, I'd say Steve is about right.
Then we have to consider it's not even accurate to claim people on the right want to shrink government as an ideology. If they do subscribe to such ideology, they've never once governed that way. In fact, when given ample opportunity to govern, they did nothing but enormously grow government. Whereas on the left, policy objectives have both shrunk government and grown government proving the left cannot possibly be labeled as Big Government.
Another Grand Example of Small Government Republicanism
It is not the president's decision on whether or not a mosque should be built two blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center. It is private land built with private money. Government has no role in any of it.
Not surprising in the least, people on the right who pride themselves in "limited government" and keeping government out of private establishments are the very people now wanting government to step in and stop the building of a place of worship.
It all goes back to the premise that started The Fold Blog in the first place: conservatives, Republicans, right wingers (whatever they call themselves) are not against big government in the least bit. Time and time again this blog has documented instances where Republicans love big government and routinely wallow in its excesses. Moreover, nothing could be more authoritarian or resemble big government more than government telling a group of people the 1st Amendment does not apply to them.
This is not a matter for government to decide.
Personally I think it's in horrible taste for a mosque to be built so close to the tragedies of 9/11. It would also be a tragedy for government to step in and force it not to happen. None of it, however, is any more tragic than invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 on trumped of charges of WMD and false connections to the attackers resulting in the deaths of more Americans than died on 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. So if we have to talk about tragedies and incoherent policy I'm all for it.
It's All About Efficiency
I think people want more efficient government. And they equate efficiency with smaller government, incorrectly I might add. For the most part I don't think anyone cares if the government has 5 agencies or 5 million, as long as they aren't wastefully inefficient.
This is something I've been saying for a long time. I'm not sure there is any way to shrink government but making it more efficient is very possible. That's why I cringe when I hear so-called conservatives talk about shrinking government so much. What are they going to eliminate? I know, I know. They talk about cutting this program and that program but in reality they have done no such thing-- and never will.
Since 1980 America has experienced 20 years of conservative rule (8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush followed by 8 years of Bush II). During all 20 of those years government grew only bigger and more expensive. So I'm not talking about the fake Republican trash talk. I'm talking about actual, substantitve policy that has led to shrinking government. And it's no where to be found.
Not to harp too much on the inability to shrink government, I personally don't think it's possible. Like I said, what are we going to cut? How are we going to make it smaller? The only way is to reduce the waste, more specifically the wasteful spending and its various inabilities. And really that equates to making government more efficient than it does to making government smaller or bigger. Efficiency is the key.
Saying that you want smaller government is a fantasy pipe dream served on a platter daily by Rush Limbaugh. Leave those wackos in the basement where they belong. Saying you want government to be more efficient is a substantive goal that could or could not result in bigger or smaller government, and neither matter. The point being, size is irrelevant as long at it works. The motion in the ocean and whatnot.
GOP Finally Forced to Filibuster
It was bound to happen and last night it did. Democrats finally forced Republicans to live up to their threats and filibuster a motion to end debate begin debate on financial regulation reform. This can be looked at a couple different ways. Reid finally muscling around a very small and extremely powerless minority party that is as popular as a root canal. Or as Republicans will view it, Freedom Fighters holding their ground against more socialist takeovers.
The word is Reid is going to keep bringing the motion back throughout the early evening forcing Republicans to filibuster every attempt. Kind of makes me nostalgic for the olden days when a screw was a screw and a filibuster was a filibuster. Don't get too giddy, however. It's all theatrics my dear.
The Rise of Public Opinion
I'm glad to see the importance of public opinion has returned to mainstream media and the American government. I thought the majority party governed at its will despite polling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have a Constitutional republic not a parliamentarian democracy.
I almost long for the days when the executive administration via national elections had the final say when it came to public opinion. Like when George Bush in 2005 responding to a question about why nobody in his administration had been held accountable for the lies that led to the Iraq War: "We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections."
Or when Dick Cheney blatantly told ABC News that public opinion did not matter when the president deems the policy necessary.
I sure miss those days. I guess things really have changed.
[Editor's note: Now remember, we are not to bring any of the past up because if we do, we only demonstrate our feckless ability to move on. We're just supposed to forget any of it ever happened and start now with recording history for future events and track records. Wheeee!]
I almost long for the days when the executive administration via national elections had the final say when it came to public opinion. Like when George Bush in 2005 responding to a question about why nobody in his administration had been held accountable for the lies that led to the Iraq War: "We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections."
Or when Dick Cheney blatantly told ABC News that public opinion did not matter when the president deems the policy necessary.
I sure miss those days. I guess things really have changed.
[Editor's note: Now remember, we are not to bring any of the past up because if we do, we only demonstrate our feckless ability to move on. We're just supposed to forget any of it ever happened and start now with recording history for future events and track records. Wheeee!]
Political Compass Score
I've always thought the popular acceptance of left vs. right is so inaccurate in American politics that it's exhausting trying to correct it or have a conversation with someone from Europe or even Canada about how we view what is liberal and conservative or left and right. In some of the comment sections I've noticed Spinner is the same way. How Americans view liberal and conservative is so wrong classically speaking that it has garnered it's own title as being American political ideology. We Americans tend to think of everything in a linear fashion. You are either on the left, right or center of every issue. When in reality the graph is circular or I've found a compass graph much more accurate.
For instance, take most "conservative" European governments and place them in our political paradigm and they would be what we call "liberal." Send Obama to Europe and he's a moderate conservative. Hardly do we hear such a label depicting Obama here in America.
Anyway, about 10 years ago I found the Political Compass as one of the best graphing tools of where people stand on a political spectrum. You can take the test here to see where you stand, it only takes a couple minutes.
I usually take the Political Compass test once a year just to see if I've changed and how much. As for me, I've generally floated right around the middle with sometimes veering toward a left-libertarian. It usually varies slightly each time. I took it this morning and I see I'm coming back closer to the middle again.
As you can see from the graph, thinking in terms of left and right is very inaccurate. When you place current American political leaders on the compass you really see what I'm talking about.
For instance, take most "conservative" European governments and place them in our political paradigm and they would be what we call "liberal." Send Obama to Europe and he's a moderate conservative. Hardly do we hear such a label depicting Obama here in America.
Anyway, about 10 years ago I found the Political Compass as one of the best graphing tools of where people stand on a political spectrum. You can take the test here to see where you stand, it only takes a couple minutes.
I usually take the Political Compass test once a year just to see if I've changed and how much. As for me, I've generally floated right around the middle with sometimes veering toward a left-libertarian. It usually varies slightly each time. I took it this morning and I see I'm coming back closer to the middle again.
As you can see from the graph, thinking in terms of left and right is very inaccurate. When you place current American political leaders on the compass you really see what I'm talking about.
Results
Not surprisingly Republican gubernatorial candidates won in VA and NJ. Neither races were all that close. However, in NY-23 Democratic candidate Bill Owens did pull out a surprising victory over Conservative Party candidate Dough Hoffman. I gotta admit I didn't see that one coming. Either way, two states with incumbent Democratic governors both carried by Obama in '08 just changed direction and elected two Republicans. I would have to say that's nothing to scoff at.
Maybe now we can return to passing health care reform.
Maybe now we can return to passing health care reform.
Posts
