Powered by TypePad

« How Green Were My Lost Jobs? | Main | An Unusual 5-4 Split On The Supremes »

June 26, 2009

Comments

fdcol63

I've always opposed the effort to enact "term limits" because I thought we already had them - called elections - and because I thought we benefitted from good and honest politicans who gained expertise in specific policy areas and who learned to work with the bureaucracy to get things done.

But now? I say throw them all out after 2 terms.

Don't give them a chance to continue to develop self-serving and almost incestuous relationships that benefit just them and their careers as politicians.

Recruit new candidates with new blood and new ideas who are still committed to serving their constituents' interests and those of the nation as a whole, not their own interests.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

The Spanish study which TM cited in this post and the sound bite lede from the Heritage Report cited above by SWarren:

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.
superimposed on that graph which DoT loves (the one showing the Porculus projection of 8% unemployment) provides all the economic ammo necessary.

As unemployment ticks through 10% without pause (Happy Labor Day!) stopping this farce should be a breeze. It just ain't that complicated.

clarice

All right--then we need our climatologists and scientists to do the first part. I don't have any in with Steele to know how to get it to him. Or to Inhofe. Does anyone here?

 Ann

I am still behind Sarah Palin. She is the most honest politician with a family that refuses to cover up their real life experiences for political gain. I still find it refreshing. Call me crazy.

Of course, I spent the day watching the elected loonies in the House corrupt our nation.

And Rich, that just put me over the top. Take two minutes and watch his link. "The Way We Were" comes to mind.

Does Michael Steele have an email or Twitter account? I can't find either one.

RichatUF

Chairman@gop.com is his email address on the website, but I doubt he'd answer it. Never know.

dk70

Though this crew would enjoy this from Sine Qua Non's blog. There are also a bunch of others.


SAT Question

Multiple choice entries in the comments below.

Smoot-Hawley is to Waxman-Markey as ...


My favorite was

Ignorance is to hubris.

Ms. Trish

Boehner is my congressman. Today I am a proud Republican!

Barbara

"Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035." Rick at 11:17 pm

Is it possible that when Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth," he wasn't talking about redistributing wealth within this country? Could it be that he was talking about taking the abundance and productivity of this country that has provided our way of life and "redistributing" it to the rest of the world? It would be the end of the American dream, and somehow I don't believe that he would care one whit.

Chris

glasater,
My pleasure on the link. It's still linked under my name for anyone interested (scroll down to #6). GS runs the country in many respects. I think it's almost unarguable. I left the broker biz (large European firm) in 2003 due to what I saw as corruption run amok. I knew the system would collapse and didn't want to be left holding the bag. Life is good at this point. I told you guys back in the day (financial collapse-TARP) that Lehman Bros. fell primarily for 1 reason-they didn't owe GS any $$. An anti-trust investigation would turn over some interesting bones, I think. Not to mention the dismissed TARP IG.

IMO, Ace is must reading for anyone who frequents here. It's kind of a locker room version of JOM.

The next bubble indeed. Carbon trading-direct transfer of taxpayer $$ to Wall Street.

Fresh Air

I would lay off Sarah on this. It isn't her job to front-run Republicans in Congress. She isn't the official (Steele) or putative (McCain) party leader. We all know she is the most important Republican alive, but that doesn't give her carte blanche to wade in in the middle of the debate on this piece of horseshit legislation.

When the dust has settled she will be heard from.

JM Hanes

"We all know she is the most important Republican alive"

Well, you can subtract at least one from that group. I doubt she'll end up running for Prez, and if she does, I doubt she'll win.

Fresh Air

Okay, I'll bite. Who is more important?

BTW, I share your skepticism. I just think she's the only figure with national stature who is presently articulating a classical liberal position. Maybe Mitt or Fred Thompson or someone else is a better candidate, but for me at least, no one resonates better than Sarah.

Fresh Air

OT--

Every now and then, on days like this, I need a nice cup of hot Schadenfreude to cheer me up. Here's one I've clipped especially for Capt. Hate, from angryjournalist.com:

Angry Journalist #8895:

8891 - I’m a journalist who has tried to get into public housing. I’ve also tried to apply for government help on rent. Unfortunately, with my $19k salary (and insane tuition payments for my useless J-School education) I can’t afford either. I am on the verge of homelessness.

Never forget: These idiots are the reason the average voter is so badly informed about important subjects like Cap & Trade and so well-informed about things like Michael Jackson's favorite foods.

glasater

Thanks Chris-

So you think GS will roll the Senate also?
On Kudlow's show this PM he was of the opinion Cap & Trade will not make it through the senate and I think he can read the Washington tea leaves as well as anyone. It's a small hope for sure.

Ann-
Michael Steele does have a twitter account but has virtually no updates. You can go to the "find people" area to locate him
or feel free to go to glasater55 and poach from the people I'm following.

glasater

This twitter account is pretty funny--

GOPSteele

Bio:

I'm royally screwing the Republican Party.

Captain Hate

angryjournalist.com

It's hard to imagine a less sympathetic gaggle of quislings because at least buggy whip manufacturers didn't pump themselves as some imaginary guardians of democracy. Although I still maintain that Watergate was the worst thing that ever happened to the integrity of the trade.

clarice

If you do the piece for Steele we can try to get it to him somehow or publish it as an open letter to him--saying this is how he should argue the case.

Parking Lot

If you go to 'jiminhofe' on twitter there are moths flying around, last update December. That makes an excellent impression /end sarc

But if you go to 'inhofepress', you do get the latest updates from his press office.

That kind of p's me off because it's so counterintuitive. His press office, imo, should be updating from 'jiminhofe'

Pofarmer

From another Heritage paper. LUN

"
Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered. Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[8] This does not sound like a great deal for the next generation--millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature."

It's hard to even tell what's in this for the politicians.

Communist takeover?

sbw

I think I'd like to label Cap and Trade as a virtual "bubble" as bad for the consumer as housing or tulips. It sucks wealth into a fantasy and bursts leaving those who bought into it impoverished. Instead of people making a real investment, it's pretend.

Jane

BTW, I share your skepticism.

Me too, albeit sadly. Too many people don't pay enough attention to realize she has been Alinsky'd. Lots of waking up will have to happen before Sarah can win - and I don't see it.

OTOH maybe we can get her to be president of our island.

PaulL

Maybe Mitt or Fred Thompson or someone else is a better candidate

I strongly supported Fred from before the start, but he was wretched as a candidate. It still has never been adequately explained why he turned out so awful.

Mitt tried desperately hard and couldn't pull it off. I wasn't the only one who noticed that he was an utterly shameless panderer who wreaked of insincerity even on those rare occasions when he probably was giving his true position.

The whole lot of the Republican candidates was highly flawed. Even with arguably the worst one nominated, John "I Know Nothing About The Economy" McCain, Ibama got only 52%.

If someone has a better candidate than Sarah in mind, it has to be someone who hasn't run for President before.

laura

I think it was Rich Lowery who mentioned that Romney had a +12 positive and Sarah only had a +1 from a Rasmussen poll. The fact she has any kind of positives astounds me given the crap that has been thrown on her.

Parking Lot

Chris,

Thanks for the link, Chris, I'm going to join Scibd just so I can download that article.

You probably already know this but Henry Paulson is known as The Environment's

Warren Buffet


Parking Lot

(( It still has never been adequately explained why he turned out so awful))

imo it was self sabotage, he didn't really want the job.

boris
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century

Nobody knows what effect and there is no way anybody can know what effect (if any) WM will have. Perhaps it's too technical ... but a better strategery for the GOP would be to decouple the politics. Make it known that:

  • the climate has already stopped warming for now;
  • WM is a naked political attempt to steal credit for that;
  • climate science failed to predict (or explain) the current climate behavior and can not be trusted to evaluate the effect of WM on climate no matter what happens.

ISTM that would take some of the steam out of the political motivation to force this through.

Also the proven climate uncertainty is now an obvious well established scientific fact that opposing experts can't honestly dispute. Anything like a prediction or explanation winds up as a demolition derby between consensus experts and skeptics.

narciso

Well, that's why didn't find as J.M. did in Fey's portrayal
of her,the last time she was written off, Jane. As for Romney, well he comes off as insincere, and frankly a quitter in the account I heard
of his last campaign, plus he has come up with doozies as
backing the sacking of G.M. and supporting the Pres's weak kneed statement on the protesters, that's just off the top of my head. I too am very dissappointed in Steele
as he was the least worse option, well I favored Blackwell, for what it's
worth. Although my strongest
contempt has been for the NRSC which has backed winners
like Specter, Crist, Tedisco,

clarice

Perhaps Palin should take a leaf from Reagan's book and take on a radio or tv gig after leaving the governorship. She shares with him a clear sighted vision for what she thinks govt should do and a capacity when clear of media saboteurs to explain those views in a way that resonates with voters.

Parking Lot

((Communist takeover?))

question for the economy/finance gurus:

if a hostile force were trying to destroy the US economy, would consolidated 'savings' now be a potential easy target for attack?

boris

she has been Alinsky'd

Bingo.

You never want to let the other side decide who our candidates are by only trying to elect the ones they haven't Alinsky'd.

By all means make them use up amo on her. Who else has such direct experience with it and a good chance to discredit the tactic. Also some candidate you might prefer gets a well blocked run at the office.

Parking Lot

((You never want to let the other side decide who our candidates are by only trying to elect the ones they haven't Alinsky'd.))

someone really needs to write an anti-Alinsky book of rules for right-thinking radicals

Rick Ballard

Boris,

Excellent comment. I don't believe that falling into the trap of trying to provide a "better" hypothesis for a system as chaotic as climate is a good bet at all. I believe that a presentation of graphs from past IPCC reports, showing them to be not just wrong but wrong beyond their own error bounds would definitely be a better course to follow than stumbling into the briar patch of competing theories.

clarice

Okay--write it up and I'll get it to Steele--I've two go betweens who are very high level--and sure to get through.

boris

"a presentation of graphs from past ..."

Have one graph where they over guess the climate and a second graph where they under guess unemployment. Then ask "accident or con?"

narciso

Darleen Click, guesting at Protein Wisdom, has a rather graphic illustration of what a sans carbon regime would entail,
extrapolating a little but not much: It would be the equivalent of the EMP, only done to ourselves;

Original MikeS

she has been Alinsky'd

Palin, and all conservative politicians, should start giving the "mark my words" speeches now.

"Mark my words. The Democrats policies are going to drive up the costs of all energy, and that will hurt everyone."

"Mark my words. The economy will recover to some extent, but the extra weight of higher taxes to pay for giveaways to Dem Special Interest Groups will prevent a robust recovery."

Peter

Green jobs are a cost not a benefit.

BTW,I find blaming Sarah Palin for this criminal scam rather odd. Isn't she Governor of Alaska,as such has no say in how the House votes.

boris

Perhaps the vote was close enough that the charge of the light brigade might have turned the tide.

Don't see it myself but the scenario isn't hard to imagine.

Captain Hate

Clarice's 9 am comment is what I believe as well. The Weekly Standard had an article laying out what Reagan did during the Carter disaster and there's no reason to think it wouldn't succeed under the Chronicles of Il Douche.

Pofarmer

I think it was Rich Lowery who mentioned that Romney had a +12 positive and Sarah only had a +1 from a Rasmussen poll. The fact she has any kind of positives astounds me given the crap that has been thrown on her.

Ditto that.

Boris, you're asking politicians to talk sense, I don't know if there's much hope in that. Well, except for Palin, every time she talks sense though, the pundits come away confused, which should be a clue, I suppose. She talks about fiscal responsiblity, limited govt, lowering taxes, and folks like Kathleen Parker go "WTF is she talking about?" She supports local agriculture in Alaska, and press tries to make a circus out of the farmer in the background of an intentionally loose set up shot doing what farmers do. And, btw, local agriculture is a famous lib cause. She has to get her message out to the people, but, there are roadblocks on every network. Maybe if we could get rid of Shep Smith..............

DebinNC

An ad exec" laments the GOP's failure to produce advocacy ads that both inform and inspire action. Steele is less than worthless; he's a liability imo. If Haley Barbour is as good on tv as he was during the Clinton years, then his replacing Gov. Sanford as head of the RGA is good news. And God bless The Heritage Foundation.

narciso

I gave up on Sep Smith, long ago, much like Rick Sanchez, he was a South Florida import
(don't blame me)Parker's self indulgent twaddle, makes me say WTF, or the spanish equivalent. Noonan's another useless one, saying Obama has taken on too much much; instead of intuiting how about do something
right. Frum is another one of this "Pierre
Rinfret" wing of clueless ones. They were all checking out the pool on the Titanic, while laughing at the ones who was yelling
"Iceberg", one could add Cheney and Rush to it. As for Mitt, one only has to read how
they took him down in '94, when running against Ted Kennedy with a falsehood relating to Bain Capital, Chapter 7 of Coulter's guilty, as I recall. Gingrich's speech seemed impressive, until we notice
that his inability to hold a consistent policy position, makes him a loose cannon.

clarice

Do not assume with all their huge staffs, people like Steele(or most Congresscritters) have anyone as capable of producing a good policy paper on this ..but JOMers can. I repeat. Write it and I'll get it to him.
I'd write it simply with footnotes to all the data. It's a briefing paper where hwe could pick out the key points for sound bites and the data footnoted can give him what he needs for answering any questions.

PeterUK

Clarice,
"All right--then we need our climatologists and scientists to do the first part."

Forget the climatology,that is how the scumbags got away with all this shit in the first place,people glaze over technical detail.
Give them the nitty gritty. Jobs will be lost,people will be impoverished,the poor will be further immiserated,the old,the young and the vulnerable will die. Western economies will be bankrupted to fill the coffers of Third World despots.
The Democrats have just said "Let them eat cake".

Jack is Back!

Reading all the comments has made me bleary eyed but also a little perplexed at some kind of blame game going around regarding the vote pattern. I don't know about the rest of you but I have been inundated by email bulletins and solicitations from every imaginable conservative viewpoint to call, fax, write my congressman, other congress critters and my senators regarding Waxman-Markey. Club for Growth, GOP USA, RNC, ACU, Heritage, et.al. Those 8 republican yes votes will never change - they don't represent energy or large production districts. But I do believe this is DoA in the Senate. Different rules and smaller tolerance for doing something extraordinary on environment or energy like this obomamation. As an ex-lobbyist for the energy/transportation engineering industry I can tell you that states like Colorado with Dem senators are very sensitive to anything like this bill. Also, the same for Montana, West Virginia, Illinois, Virginia and Pennsylvania with Dem senators. Those are energy states as is New Mexico and Louisiana (one Dem senator). Inhofe is spot on. There are not the votes there - mostly West Coast and East Coast senators. IMHO.

DebinNC

visuals, visuals, visuals

That Heritage Foundation deficits chart is more effective than a gazillion words.

PeterUK

Mr Ballard,

May suggest an on line countdown of employment to Labor Day? Somewhat like the Iraq Body Count.

Captain Hate

Gingrich's speech seemed impressive, until we notice that his inability to hold a consistent policy position, makes him a loose cannon.

Newt reminds me of Slick in a lot of ways: #1. He's smart but not nearly as smart as he thinks #2. He has a monster ego which craves stroking and publicity #3. Invariably he follows doing something well by screwing things up

I think he's more principled than the smartest boy from Hope, Arkansas (like who isn't) but still is guilty of what I quoted from narciso. Newt needs to stay on message or stfu but I doubt that his ego, like Slick's, will permit that to happen.

clarice

PUK--it's enough to show that all this expense will yield absolutely nothing so even if we are wrong on the projections, the cost/benefit ratio is crazy. (I'd emphasize the economics for sure though. On that we agree.)

Porchlight

Great assessment of Newt, Captain. When he's on point he's the best, but the rest of the time he's a bit of a snake.

Original MikeS

...unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.

Similar projections are coming from all sources, so these must be the intended consequences. There may also be some unpleasant UNintended consequences.

boris

The net already has a graph of how TARP was supposed to reduce unemployment and what really happened. What's needed is an uncontestable graph of the prediction of warming over the last 10 years and what really happened (leveled off around 2001).

IMO those two would make the point that needs to be made. The discrepencies seem too convenient (or contrived) to be coincidence.

Pofarmer

There may also be some unpleasant UNintended consequences.

If the intended consequences are bad, how bad must the unintended consequinces be?

narciso

I do seem unduly harsh on Newt, there's a reason for that.I followed his special
orders, through the late 80s and 90s, My first vote was for the '94 class, I had discounted much of the Osborne tale of his his separation from first wife as so much
rumor, spread by the likes of Begala. The closest analog to Axelrod. I began to have doubts around the '95 shutdown fiasco, but
I still held out hope, the subsquent election campaign, was the one that convinced much of the remaining class, that it was better to remain high on the hog, instead of pressing for further reductions in the rate of growth. That and Franklin Raines, 'enron accounting' soon to raise their head at Fannie Mae. This was also around the time that Jack Abramoff 'turned'
to the dark side. The perception of those actions along with the Lewinsky brouhaha
was what led to the 'compassionate
conservative' synthesis. People forget, but
I unfortunately can't, that Bush never promised to be a budget cutter or a border
crusader. He promised to build up the
military and tax cuts. He probably wasn't counting on military campaigns of the severity we have now been embarking on,

PeterUK

"Clarice,
The economic effects are glaringly visible here,now! The Levy on energy bills which pays the subsidy due to wind farmer via the Renewables Obligation Certificate,or License to Print Money ,is already pricing the poor,pensioners and those on fixed incomes out of the energy market.
Put bluntly,the choice for many is
EAT OR HEAT.
This creates a downside in the economy as more disposable income has to be spent on energy.Energy price hikes are going to be devastating to the growing army of the unemployed.

Extraneus

Newt just talks too much. Always did. It worked for him during midnight "special session" speeches, alone on the floor haranguing Jim Wright, etc., but when he took over the House, he should have done what the Captain says, stfu. Alas, he couldn't help himself.

Even like-minded people have to get tired of his constant blabbing. I know I did, a long time ago.

clarice

Yes, they are,PUK. I am not writing this briefing paper though. Many posters have been following this more closely and bring to the table more experience and knowledge.
On this my contribution is only to tell you this is a briefing paper not War and Peace (keep it short ) and not a comic book (put up solid documentation for each point )AND to everything i can to get it to Steele.

Sue

Glenn Beck had an economist on yesterday that explained it very well. A transcript of Beck's show would provide the exact wording he used. Beck also played the interview with Obama where he said energy prices would skyrocket under his (Obama's) cap and trade plan. That never got through the MSM during the campaign.

Sue

Actually, a lot of the congresscritters that voted against W-M have explained it very well too. They just aren't getting through to the brainwashed via MSM. They can thank Sanford for that, in part, along with Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. However, they know they aren't getting through so they need to change their MO. They need to get the best of them out on every talk show, tv show, newspaper, etc. putting it in plain English what W-M is going to actually do to our economy. And start pulling some stunts. Sort of like what they did last summer with 'drill baby drill'.

PeterUK

Clarice,
It would be worthwhile for whoever is writing the briefing paper to examine the effects already under way in Britain and Europe.EUReferendum has a lot of solid research.

Sue

I also agree with JMH, to a degree. Palin has a voice in this due to the damage it will do to Alaska's main source of economy. She also can attract the attention of those who otherwise wouldn't pay attention, simply because they want to see her do something stupid. This is her baby. She shines when she talks energy. Put her out there. But I don't really blame Palin for not being the voice here, I blame the republican party for refusing to use their best asset in this argument. They were more than willing to throw Mark Sanford out there on refusing to take stimulus money, but aren't willing to use Palin on the worst legislation to be thrust upon the American people since...I don't know since when.

Sue

PUK,

Glenn Beck's show yesterday is what we need. Without the theatrics. A transcript of his show has everything already mentioned so far. You just can't use Beck because he also had a watermelon, an ice cream bar and his usual props. But his message was right on.

Rocco

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

1985–2003...Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.

2003–2007...New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.

From Aug 2007...Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

David Evans

PeterUK

You need some sound bites. "Fuel Poverty" is doing well here,even though it is true.

glasater

Parking Lot-

if a hostile force were trying to destroy the US economy, would consolidated 'savings' now be a potential easy target for attack?

I'm very concerned about that also.

Ms. Trish

It occurred to me from the discussion, that what you are saying is to "Alinsky" the climate argument. Pick the target (global warming) and polarize it.

PeterUK

Some of the points you will have to refute.

"[quote="debristrail"][b]Proof that the Bill is based on hard science can be found in Section 701:[/b] ... and no, the following is not parody or humour ... it's the real deal.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Global warming poses a significant threat to the national security, economy, public health and welfare, and environment of the United States, as well as of other nations.
(2) Reviews of scientific studies……….demonstrate that global warming is the result of the combined anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from numerous sources
(3) Because they induce global warming, greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to injuries to persons in the United States, including–
(A) adverse health effects such as disease and loss of life;
(B) displacement of human populations;
(C) damage to property and other interests related to ocean levels, acidification, and ice changes;
(D) severe weather and seasonal changes;
(E) disruption, costs, and losses to business, trade, employment, farms, subsistence, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, recreation, culture, and tourism;
(F) damage to plants, forests, lands, and waters;
(G) harm to wildlife and habitat;
(H) scarcity of water and the decreased abundance of other natural resources;
(I) worsening of tropospheric air pollution;
(J) substantial threats of similar damage; and
(K) other harm.

I think I'll go and pour myself a stiff drink and relax in the comfort of knowing that I live in one of the last places on earth where commonsense still rules ... Saskatchewan, Canada.[/quote]
Commenter EURef

bio mom

Just wrote my RINO congressman who voted yes. He is considering running for the Senate here. Maybe he will just switch like Spector. I know he votes with them aleady on social issues but he has always claimed to be fiscally conservative. He has been duped by the global warming alarmists. His science isn't too solid on much of anything. I heard him speak once about stem cells. It was embarrassing how ill-informed he was. I have no representation in my state now.

PeterUK

Follow the money,There's gold in that thar Climate Change. the Wheelers in Britain.

sbw

McHugh (R) is/was congresscritter around us. Tapped by Obama for Secretary of the Army. From that job he can push Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain. Funny how he voted FOR Waxman's bill.

Funny how Arcuri (D) from around here, could be undecided during the day and vote 'No' when his vote didn't matter.

Vote the bums out. All of them.

Porchlight

My rep, Doggett, claimed he didn't support the bill because it didn't go far enough. Then he voted yes anyway. Jerk.

JM Hanes

"I find blaming Sarah Palin for this criminal scam rather odd."

It's people's willingness to make excuses for her that I find striking.

glasater

Conservatives can argue all day long about who the leader should be but I think we need another Lee Atwater-type. He was the best!

Captain Hate

glasater, this garbage software ate a comment of mine praising Atwater last night.

boris

"make excuses"

Blame the victim?

glasater

Thanks Captain-

I really like Sarah Palin a bunch. She would choke me up for her just plain courage when she would speak at last fall's campaign rallies.

But the woman I think has some real potential is Liz Cheney. She has a real facility of slicing and dicing verbally opposing points. Making the chosen points to the people is a gift and she has it. She would make hash out of Zero in a debate.

DebinNC

What if the energy "bill" the House passed isn't a bill?

clarice

If anyone's actually working on a briefing paper, email it to me when it's ready and I'll do my part.

DrJ

I'd be happy to read and edit it too, Clarice. No time to write it, alas.

Captain Hate

Liz manages to calmly shut the hissing serpent Carville up on the ABC Sunday gabfest, which I thought was impossible, while reducing Stephie and Katrina to looking like twin clueless trannys.

boris

Well so far I've got a title ... "Waxing Malarky"

PD

"I find blaming Sarah Palin for this criminal scam rather odd."

I read it more as disappointment that she hasn't been more out front in the the M-W debate, given her expertise in energy production and policy. But as others have pointed out, she's not in Congress. I don't see pointing that out as making an excuse. JMH might disagree.

What I find a lot more disappointing is that the Republicans who *are* in Congress aren't making a strong case against this debacle. There are exceptions such as Boehner and Imhofe, but otherwise it seems like crickets. Perhaps they're speaking and it's not getting reported, or perhaps I'm just not paying enough attention.

Pofarmer

It's people's willingness to make excuses for her that I find striking.

Now, that's just silly.

WHEN. HAS. A. SITTING. GOVERNOR. EVER. INJECTED. THEMSELVES. INTO. A. CONGRESSIONAL. DEBATE?

glasater

Great article DebinNC--as always.

Freddoso is a good "follow" on twitter.

PeterUK

"WHEN. HAS. A. SITTING. GOVERNOR. EVER. INJECTED. THEMSELVES. INTO. A. CONGRESSIONAL. DEBATE?"

I expect the response if one did to be "Bog Off".

boris

If I can locate some needed graphs I'll put together something along the lines of my earlier post.

The basic premise is to exploit a simple notion, such as "Tax cuts for the rich". Tax cuts do help the rich so actual mind reading is not necessary to establish the idea. The implication is unfair in that case because the intent is to help the economy for everybody's sake.

WM is not intended to help the economy, all it can actually acomplish is steal credit for something already happening. The only way you get to make the "already happening" case is by provoking an argument on that turf.

clarice

Ok Boris..Dr J, I take it you'd edit the scientific part of the argument..Has anyone volunteered to write that up? If not, Dr. J why not pick out the best of the arguments already made here and edit them into something coherent.

clarice

Use this email addy to send me anything:
clarice.feldman@gmail.com

Ms. Trish

DebinNC, re the Powerline link:

I happened to turn C-Span on yesterday while Reps. Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert were speaking on the House floor, pointing out that the official copy of the bill (required by law to be available at the desk) consisted of the original bill with the 300 page manager's amendment sitting next to it, being physically "integrated" by the clerk while said bill was being debated on the floor.

Barton and Gohmert were great at pointing out the travesty that was taking place!

DrJ

Kim would actually be much better suited to this. I will have a look, though. Are the arguments in this thread?

Ms. Trish

Oops. Make that "required by House rules."

narciso

I think the general point is that people are strongest on what they know; Sarah's is energy and prudent administration, Liz was Middle East chief for State, so she would have an entree with those issues. Cheney Sr 's.'top advisors, were the key players on the detention and interrogation
protocols.

Many of these share the fact that they were demonized 'alinskyized' if you will. You get a good perspective of this in Bradley Graham's recent bio of Rumsfeld, where many of the 'push button' isssues like Shinseki's
400,000 troop push, Rumsfeld's supposed purge of him and other areas, in the cold light of day ,are not as stark as Packer, Trainor and Ricks portrayed it as being. It is not a congratulatory tome by any means, but it goes a long way to putting things into perspective.

PeterUK

DrJ
The points in the Bill are here.

JM Hanes

Pofarmer:

"WHEN. HAS. A. SITTING. GOVERNOR. EVER. INJECTED. THEMSELVES. INTO. A. CONGRESSIONAL. DEBATE?"

How quickly we forget the brouhaha over the stimulus package!

At a paradigm shifting moment, which pivots on what are presumably Palin's signature issues of energy and government control, standing there with a virtual megaphone that you don't use is not my idea of leadership -- or breaking any moulds. It's also an enormous opportunity gone begging. Watching the country walk off a cliff while you're prepping for 2012 is not my idea of a more effective or desirable election strategy -- as some have suggested -- than laying down some markers either.

The margin of defeat here was a mere 4 Republican votes, and if folks don't think Palin could have made a difference, I don't know why they think she's the next best thing in politics. As for that not being her job, Po, I'd just point out that Alaska stands to suffer mightily, along with the rest of us, if all the other Republicans can't derail this train in the Senate. If she does decide to run for the White House, do you really think nobody is going to ask where she was when the chips were down, and what she has to show for it?

boris:

Let me know when you start seeing "Vote for the Victim" bumperstickers.

Rick Ballard

Boris,

Unemployment Per Obanomics

I'm still perusing the Spanish report for the appropriate chart and I haven't found a good graphic displaying the IPCC failed prediction.

There must be a chart somewhere which shows estimated costs at time of passage for Medicare v reality - that would make another good promises versus reality point.

clarice

Hoe Medicare Part D was lowballed.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/05/medicare/index.html

Does this help, Boris?

Old Dad

I think the counterattack can be simple.

It's clear that none of the yea votes had even read the legislation--it's simply not possible. At best, such behavior admits gross incompetence. What would you do if your attorney had failed to read the requisite legal documents pertaining to your case? You'd fire hime, of course.

It's really quite plain--Fire Congress. There is no reasonable alternative.

Porchlight

The margin of defeat here was a mere 4 Republican votes, and if folks don't think Palin could have made a difference, I don't know why they think she's the next best thing in politics.

Pelosi let some Dems vote no because she knew she had enough Reps in the bag. Had that not been the case, she would have produced enough Dems to make up the difference.

The Reps who voted yes are a major embarrassment/disappointment; however, I doubt Sarah could have made a difference there. They are mostly from the NE and hope to get a bigger share of the allocation.

But bottom line, this thing was going to pass no matter what.

JM Hanes

Porchlight:

"But bottom line, this thing was going to pass no matter what."

A four vote squeaker doesn't suggest inevitability to me. When Waxman tried to shut Boehner up, he was clearly worried some of his folks might abandon ship, or that the deals he had only just made on the floor itself might fall through. The way those final votes came in didn't look to me like Pelosi was unleashing anybody at the finish line, but it would be really interesting to see whose votes were the last ones to be cast, wouldn't it? I assume she let Tauscher take the gavel because she needed to work the floor, although apparently it was Tauscher's last day in the House, so it could have been a sentimental gesture. If we weren't talking about Pelosi. I loved Tauscher citing traditional courtesies when she refused to tell Waxman how long Boehner had been at the podium, didn't you?

boris

JMH: "Vote for the Victim"

The word is also used for any target of injustice, regardless of harm. If suggesting there is no national role for her at this time is "making excuses" then your "if she's so smart why aint she saved the world" can be called blame.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame