Republican debates

[kevbone]

Obama isn't great, but he's a long way from Bush.

 

Really? Where is the change we can believe in? Are we still at war? How much has Obama approved for stimulus? Guantanamo still open? Come on now.....open your eyes. Sure seems like the status quo has not changed much.....matter of fact he kept some of the same people from the Bush Administration for his own.

[j_b]

Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"

 

Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)

 

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.

 

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

 

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

 

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

 

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

 

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!"

 

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

 

In his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice," Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is less important that every rule and custom of a legislature be absolutely justifiable in a theoretical sense, than that they should be generally acknowledged and honored by all parties. These include unwritten rules, customs and courtesies that lubricate the legislative machinery and keep governance a relatively civilized procedure. The US Senate has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world; many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on analogous cases.

 

The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.

 

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

 

John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:

 

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."

 

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.[...]

 

Much more: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

[billcoe]

Pretty much make Kevbones point quite well jb. Nice link, hope Rob reads it too. Same-same/no substantive difference.

 

Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests....

 

 

[j_b]

Reading isn't your forte as the article makes it very clear there is a significant difference between the 2 parties.

 

Can you explain how your position and that of other tea party types at the time of the health care debates (and most other issues) didn't amount to capitulation to corporate interests? As your cartoon remind us, putting the accent on the debt instead of the economic crisis and unemployment is a corporatist talking point.

 

 

 

[billcoe]

Obama isn't great, but he's a long way from Bush.

Really? Where is the change we can believe in? Are we still at war? How much has Obama approved for stimulus? Guantanamo still open? Come on now.....open your eyes. Sure seems like the status quo has not changed much.....matter of fact he kept some of the same people from the Bush Administration for his own.

 

Well, Obama approved the executions of 2 US citizens who were not a direct threat and the government not only whacked them, but got the attempted Judicial review by the father squashed....that's significant change that we didn't even see from the most regressive neocons ever seen running a country anywhere on the planet (outside of Africa). I wonder what these liberals would have said if Bush and his cronies had been bold enough to have ordered the murder of 2 US citizens because they were getting mouthy and talkin' shit about the US?

 

The administration didn't even make Kalid Sheik Mohammed Dickhead do anything but set a Guinness world record bobbing for apples, and he was NOT a US citizen and clearly complicit in directly murdering US citizens. Before he was elected, Obama promised to get due process involved with the Guantanamo prisoners, who are not even US citizens and are enemy combatants.

 

Got "Progressive"? I'm willing to "change" back to letting the constitution be the law of the land like it had been since 1776. This new extra-constitutional Presidential power Barak gave himself coupled with expanding goverment all across the board when there isn't money to do it isn't the change I'd like to see. I'd rather change back to a half literate neocon from Texas than see any President be able to be judge, jury, and executioner with no recourse, this is a huge issue. I suspect folks like jb are secretly proud until they start to reflect and consider all the fascist appearances and big business-big money connections behind these murders by the new "progressive" state.

 

Reverse progressiveness? How about this for a flag?

 

 

...and everyone needs a good letterhead, how about this below?

 

 

 

That's my thoughts.

 

[ivan]

...2 US citizens who were not a direct threat...

what is a "direct threat?" this recent fella doesn't sound like anyone much crying over, who was eager to use violence to kill our citizens - what on earth can you do but kill such folks when they're in godforsaken lands in the pursuit of those goals?

 

the lack of judicial review is definetly disturbing, but, if the choice must be between whole-sale occupation of unstable foreign countries and the selected assassination of the various dickheads who are showing true promise and potential in killing americans, this one seems the wiser.

 

what in your mind would be required in order for it to have been justifiable? where's the line that homeboy didn't cross?

[j_b]

Yo, Billco. Keep me out of your crazy rants and especially don't make up shit because it suits your agenda. I was criticizing Obama before he was elected and I have pointed out numerous times since his many shortcomings, including his numerous failures to walk back the clock on Bush's assault on civil liberties and human rights.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's impossible to determine guilt or innocence with extra-judicial killings due to a) the lack of due process and b) secrecy.

 

The problem is fundamental...if one believes in the rule of law and those values embodied in our present day constitution.

 

BTW, for all you self styled constitutional scholars out there, the document wasn't ratified until 1789 (not 1776). The first ten amendments weren't added until 1791. Even then, with slavery and all, it wasn't worth much more than the paper it was written on.

 

The last two+ centuries of activism, legislation, and jurisprudence are what have given our Constitution meaning and value. The original document was merely list of ideas and promises; most of which weren't acted upon or kept for many decades afterwards.

 

Everyone's an expert these days...it's all the rage, but even the most seemingly straightforward and fundamental rights embodied in that document have very, very complicated histories and issues surrounding them when actually applied in real life.

 

Ah yes, the real world. So inconveniently messy for the American simpleton.

 

You've got to fight

for your right

to party.

[tvashtarkatena]

Regarding the "invade" or "assassinate" question; there are more than just those two choices available. Doing nothing, for example, is always an option...and often the best one.

[billcoe]

To me Ivan, that line gets immediately crossed when folks in power make up shit as they go along merely cause its convineant to them. In this case, the Obama administration not only didn't press a court case, and this mouth breather could have been tried in absentee could he not, but they shut down the case the guys father brought to keep his kid alive.

 

I feel we need to be careful and avoid these rough paths. Like what the Nazis did at the start of the war. They started moving terminally ill people into wards where they essentially got no care until they died. Which led them considering if they could treat a war veteran that way, how about someone lower in their estimation just taking up space like the Joos.... and to all kinds of craziness later.

 

That is the line I think we just crossed, where we don't have to go to court to get rid of some lowlife, we can take some individual politicians pitch in the media as the gospel truth.

 

 

 

I was criticizing Obama before he was elected and I have pointed out numerous times since his many shortcomings, including his numerous failures to walk back the clock on Bush's assault on civil liberties and human rights.

 

True dat!

[ivan]

the attempts by the clinton administration to kill osama after the kenyan embassy and uss cole incidents would be considered extra-judicial killings, right? and wouldn't the past decade have been better if they had been successful? it doesn't seem like the whole concept can be universally taboo - the rabbithole of the "ticking timebomb" in 2003 never seemed to get closed for good, despite the shit outcome. i guess some folks are still claiming victory in vietnam too...

 

in the end, good governments just about killing the right people, right?

Edited October 5, 2011 by ivan

[billcoe]

the attempts by the clinton administration to kill osama after the kenyan embassy and uss cole incidents would be considered extra-judicial killings, right? and wouldn't the past decade have been better if they had been successful? it doesn't seem like the whole concept can be universally taboo - the rabbithole of the "ticking timebomb" in 2003 never seemed to get closed for good, despite the shit outcome. i guess some folks are still claiming victory in vietnam too...

 

in the end, good governments just about killing the right people, right?

 

Nope, that's like comparing Tomatos and stinkbugs.

 

Osama = NON US citizen and self proclaimed enemy combatant at war who actively murdered US citizens, claimed he was in process of planning more, and refused and rejected US justice.

 

Al-Awaki = US citizen who was only shit talkin'. Thought crime so to speak. The constitution was made for examples like this. US proclaimed that they considered him a target and then proceeded 6 times to try and kill him. While this was going on, the kid tried to avoid all things US but the dad came to the US courts seeking redress and the Obummer administration did everything they could to squash it. The judge didn't want to go nationalal security as a reason but it was tossed as the dad "didn't have standing".

 

The Clinton folks had a shitload of internal legal wrangling and attempt to be legally in the clear. They sought legal opinions from several sources. In the end, you had an enemy combatant who had taken up arms and was trying to murder US citizens. This administration has said that the rational for the murder of a US citizen with no judicial review or recourse, the legal rational they invented, is protected by national security.

 

They are radically different things and circumstances IMO. I'm actually fine with the dickhead being dead, and the other dickhead as well - but this method of murdering him, given he hadn't actually taken up arms and wasn't planning an attack, is wrong. Legally, it goes against what our country is all about. Perhaps it will be found to be illegal at some point down the road, until then, be aware that the President now has the power of life and death via the ability to assassinate anyone and every one of us subjects. We have no recourse if it is a "claimed" national security issue, even if later it is learned to be a false one.

 

As long as they get the press releases to read right and everyone believes them.

 

 

If I could just let go and believe that every goverment press release that the media is printing is the gods honest and flawless truth nd they never make mistakes, I'd probably be fine. Therein lies the heart of the issue.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-killings-yemen-good-politics-home-quagmire-abroad-170049177.html

We have never been at war with Oceania. Never. In my mind, we need smaller goverment no matter if it is called Democrat or republican, and certainly less intrusive gov't as well. We need to stop being the worlds policemen and lead through example, not via a gun barrel. The way we are doing it, and borrowing to do it - so that your children will have to pay it back, is damned costly on many many levels. This is just one more.

 

 

[ivan]

i've never been a fan of one set of rules for citizens and one for the rest of the world, at least when it comes to basic questions like "do you have the right not to be blown the fuck up by yours truly for whatever reason i want" seems to me all humans should have the right to simple things like that and habeas corpus...

[tvashtarkatena]

If we don't make shit up as we go along, who will do it for us?

[pink]

If we don't make shit up as we go along, who will do it for us?

 

YOU WILL

[billcoe]

i've never been a fan of one set of rules for citizens and one for the rest of the world, at least when it comes to basic questions like "do you have the right not to be blown the fuck up by yours truly for whatever reason i want" seems to me all humans should have the right to simple things like that and habeas corpus...

 

IMO 2 differing sets of circumstances. Imagine 2 neighbors.

 

1 is coming at you armed and is going to kill you. You can see other neighbors bodies in the street and had come out to the porch when you heard shots. This neighbor tells you he's going to kill you and is armed with a weapon. "Direct threat", you put him down. Self-defense.

 

The 2nd neighbor is pissed at you, he's yelling and arm waving but is otherwise unarmed, if you put him down you go to jail for murder.

 

 

That is what is here. I see this execution as different, and to me, a significant line wherein the rule of law got crossed. In fact, about a year back or so, Al-Awaki in an interview denyed what the Obama administration was saying. Said they were wrong, that he didn't say the shit they were accusing him of. So I guess we'll never really know the whole truth as we took some unnamed cia officer(s) word on it, and they don't make mistakes, fortunately. And it's Obama that made the decision to pass on a court of law and just outright kill the man, and not that nasty Geo Bush or some other repub regressive, so it must be OK I suppose. He's never wrong either. You're right, this guy didn't need an appeal on the death sentence, someone said he deserved it, and they leaked it via press release to the media, so it must be true. He was tried and convinced in the media by unnamed accusers, he tried to run his appeal via the media .... This is change isn't it? Change for the worse.

 

Some of you dudes argueing that the "republifucks" make you sick and the democrats rule totally cracks me up. Same same, scant difference.

 

later!

[stevetimetravlr]

Bill, it appears what you are thinking is not in line with government policy, so I regret to inform you that............... BOOM!

 

[olyclimber]

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]CYtLYPiMrew

[billcoe]

You see how you are Oly? This thread was just rolling along all smooth and then you post and it's like a car and a brick wall...WHAM!

 

I changed the title, lets see what happens.

 

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]wDljSyiqJM0

[rob]

This is the sort of hard-hitting reporting that I've come to expect from this great country!

 

Can somebody please get a video of Katie Holmes farting inside of a Scientology church?