Presidential Politics

There is no distinction between the parties on this subject. Men of power get what they want; that's what power is for. Our simple-minded electorate wants pure-as-snow morality from our leaders, so our politicians lie about their activities. They lie, they steal, they condemn the actions of others who do the same. They are politicians.

The only amusement I draw from any of this crap is having the hypocrisy exposed of the ones that are big on "family values" or who engage in homosexual acts while publicly decrying them.

Any thoughts on that recent (two-hour!) repub debate? I'm missing all the spin, being overseas!

ddt

I haven't seen it. I heard that Bachman did very well.

Wow... Reaching back... That Repub Tell-All... I see how that blew up the race eh? Hrm..

No, see hypocrisy is no problem with the Republican party. David Vitter was a CLIENT OF A PROSTITUTION RING. Nobody asked him to resign from the "family-values" camp. And he won re-election from his constituents. John Ensign has an extramarital affair, covered it up, PAID PEOPLE OFF to cover it up, had ANOTHER SENATOR (Coburn) help him 'cover it up', and STILL nobody in that party demanded his resignation, though he finally resigned TWO YEARS LATER.

Weiner, does NOTHING illegal, barely anything immoral, and the Republicans are clutching their pearls, and rending their garments. "THE CHILDREN, WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN!!!". And guess what, the Democrats ALSO clutch their pearls, and rend their garments and call for his resignation.

Wonder which side actually has (a modicum of) ethics... Though so.

As for the republican race, every poll has the primary voters looking for someone other than the current contenders. Is it Chris Christie. Is it Rick Perry. It was John Huntsman... It was Newt. Is it Sarah Palin. Is it Mitch Daniels. I actually would be ecstatic (mostly, see below) if Michelle Bachmann won the nomination. There is NO CHANCE she wins, because she's just as nutty as Palin/Newt/Beck but doesn't have Palin's charisma to 'goose' the ratings. She would have her clock cleaned in the general and AS A BONUS it would really show the American people how the nutcases have taken over the Republican party despite all the poo-pooing and cluck-clucking of the republican "cognoscenti" that it's not true.

Morg "Though it's going to be a weird season with both parties spending upwards of a billion dollars... *sigh*" anti

** The problem is that no matter WHO is the opponent they actually have a chance of winning. Something weird might happen. Maybe the economy implodes. Maybe BO is found to have fathered a child out of wedlock, or killed a guy in Reno just to watch him die. If the opponent is somewhat sane, it's survivable, if you put Michelle "we need a bill to prevent the US from adopting a world currency" Bachmann in charge... all bets are off.

I think that's the problem. Not that we think she'll win, but the (probably literally) earth-shattering consequences if she does. It's also frightening when she can get through even a soft-ball debate without sounding batshit crazy. She might fool people into believing she's who she thinks she is.

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has a great rundown on Bachmann in this article and a recap of her campaign kickoff here.

interesting read--thanks for the link Dave

Indeed, quite an eyeopener.

It's odd reading about my town (Stillwater, MN) in rolling stone.
She is a nut case. I've run in to here and her supports more than once. They've attempted to disrupt democrat political events in my town. A fun bunch,

Is she associated with Christine O'Donnell?

Do I need to rub one out for freedom?

Okay, honest question for fiscal conservatives (admittedly from a progressive perspective): Why can no one do the maths on things like funding for schools, teachers, early child nutrition, health programs in regards to "we spend this now, but it saves us money tenfold in a few years) while such arguments of "tax breaks cost us now but will lure investment" are commonplace?

For example: in this story (which is from a liberal rag) we see actual quotes from conservatives who support cutting schools while cutting taxes on $250,000+ yachts. They can make the cost-benefit analysis for one, but not the other.

ddt

Silly ddt - it's nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. The former (schools, teachers, health programs) is money for poor people while the latter (tax breaks on yachts) is money for rich people.

It's a case of "fuck you Jack, I got mine" - perhaps a quotient representing this factor can be added to calculations?

Most people claiming to be fiscal conservatives are only interested in cutting Government spending that isn't spent on them.

I guess the same can be said about many progressives and liberals too - we only want government spending/largesse on issues important to us.

Trickle down economics is also such a hoax that people on the right side of the spectrum would want you to believe. I feel pity for them who actually vote Republican and have been made to believe they belong to the top 1% that benefits all these policies.

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

And, boy, am I embarrassed.

Surely if trickle-down tax cuts work, trickle-down educational investments do. Please, your arguments are based on logic when they should be based on soundbites. "Raise taxes on the rich" doesn't work because they all think they'll be rich, but seems to be a little more traction with specific examples like "raise taxes on hedge fund managers" because they can't relate there. But what do I know - I'm just a simple caveman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2011 07:43PM by johnny k.

Raise taxes on cavemen.

Quote
tomierna
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Awesome quote. Where did you hear that one?

Quote

Surely if trickle-down tax cuts work, trickle-down educational investments do.

Not sure if I'm following the logic properly here but yeah, as well as tax cuts for Donald Trump some basic education would do him the world of good too.

Good points, all... okay, let's decouple the policy from the politics of it and assue all promoters of trickle-down, cut-the-deficit-at-all-costs, tax-cuts-for-wealthy are all cynical bastards who know they are mouthing falsehoods (the "bullshit" versus "lie" distinction).

Then the question becomes: why has no proponent of education, social support funding, infrastructure, etc., made the soundbite case that "this _is_ savings: for every dollar we invest now, we see a tenfold return in 10 years" or "providing access to a decent breakfast for schoolchildren gets them better jobs in 15 years so they can work hard and pay taxes" or "if we don't fix the bridge you commute to work on now, it'll cost hundreds of millions in five years when it collapses, not to mention the lives lost" and "government is in the unique position to look ahead like that -- putting in these investments that are necessary for economic and personal well-being would be too burdensome on businesses".

ddt

Tony: that quote is attributed to James Steinbeck. It seems to pop up in these discussions.

ddt: conservatives don't view government as a provider of services. Services are for corporations, individuals and the church to provide. Government to them is only a source of laws and regulation, and therefore only has the capacity to stifle.

Progressives see government as a potential power for services which do good for it's people, as well as lawmaker and regulator. Progressives also tend to see the value of regulation. Yesterday on NPR there was a good piece about clean air regulation and how conservatives were billing the EPA as job-killing as a result of costly regulations, but that an independent report showed that despite the up front costs, the return in living conditions more than made up for the cost.

These kinds of comparisons are being made, but they need to be made more centrally, and with a consolidated media push.