Taking the easy way out.
When you play a pivotal role in monumentally important legislation, you'd better face the public and justify what you did with the power they trusted you with. If you're not up for that, we should read it as an admission that you did the wrong thing — without even the nerve to come out and say I'm sorry, I was wrong.
९ एप्रिल, २०१०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
craven
It may be lame, but it still means one less incumbent, which should be celebrated.
I blame talk radio.
I wonder what kind of pension he will get for his 16-18 years in Congress? He is 58 years old. I suspect he can start getting pension checks as soon as he leaves office and the annual payments will be north of $100K.
Perhaps we can make him the poster boy for what ails our govt worker pension system.
November is going to be very interesting.
I think you're misreading this.
Clearly the legislation was just so good that Stupak doesn't want to embarrass any opponents with the overwhelming victory he'd have in November.
He is reacting to his reelection in the same manner in which he defended his anti-abortion stance in the Health Scare Bill, by running away.
Charlevoix County doesn't play well in the UP or the rest of the Northern Lower Peninsula, an area already feeling the effects of Graholm's economic equivalance of carpet bombing. Expect this to go R this fall.
Maybe he can get a job running those airports he got funded.
Busy political morning:
-Stupak (obviously)
-Justice Steven has announced his retirement
-Rumors of Barney Frank retiring
-SEIU forming a 3rd party in NC
-Unions wishing for the death of Gov. Christie
He was promised a seat on the Supreme Court, as soon as one opens. Oh wait....
President Obama called Stupak on Wednesday to talk him out of retiring, Fox News learned.
Hee!
Btw, Ann, this is apparently retirement day. Cnn says that the Supreme Court press office says that justice stevens is stepping down, too.
Michael H...that is a prescious thought to see Stupak appointed to the Court. He will be Pro-life during his Senate hearings, and then who can really say what that means? To have SCOTUS Opinions written by Justice Stupak sounds so special.
Future K-street lobbyist, Bart Stupak.
Issob said:
"Running away".
Someone who knows how to do links should link to the Monty Python piece where they encounter the Killer Rabbit and one of them yells "Run away run away" to his fellow knights.
"I am proud of the historic, essential, fair and just health care bill I helped enact.
Now I am going to run and hide.
Thank you."
"Justice" Stupak?
Stupak knows that he betrayed himself with that Jesuitical "signing" trick that won't work past the first lawsuit.
Maybe this is his way of reclaiming his inner respect.
Hey, I'm hopeful about the world today, for some reason.
-XC
PS - @jane_cobb re: SEIU third party. I'm going to give them some money. Better than a movie theater here in the NC summer....
PatCA:
"Does he have a cushy payoff...er, job waiting for him?"
Oh yeah!! But, there's going to be a "decent interval" between his resignation and the new job.
AJ Lynch
Yeah, it will go from looking like the rabbit scene, to Obama looking like the black knight, with his arms and legs cut off, but saying, "its just a flesh wound."
But he really hasn't learned much. Why didn't he announce his retirement later on a Friday? That would be the real DC way of doing things.
Stupak will be an ambassador before you know it!
Word is Barry called to ask him not to retire. Man, that guy's coattails are longgggggg, ain't they?
Better retired than fired.
Wyatt Earp: I just want you to know it's over between us.
Curly Bill: Well... bye.
Tombstone, 1993
Mad Man said:
"But he really hasn't learned much. Why didn't he announce his retirement later on a Friday? That would be the real DC way of doing things."
I think Rush Limbaugh may pay them to do this stuff before his show goes on the air. It makes his job a lot easier.
One down, ten to go.
PatCA said...
Does he have a cushy payoff...er, job waiting for him?
There's a pool getting started on Breitbart.
jayne_cobb said...
Busy political morning:
-Stupak (obviously)
-Justice Steven has announced his retirement
This won't help Malia and Sasha. Get ready for all the air to be sucked out of the Senate. Those children don't multi-task.
-Rumors of Barney Frank retiring
-SEIU forming a 3rd party in NC
Be still, my beating heart.
-Unions wishing for the death of Gov. Christie
Waiting for the usual suspects...
The bargain made to stupak was that if he voted against the bill he could still lose but would not be able to get a job in the future because democrats would hate him. If he voted against for the bill, he would lose his seat, but at lease be guaranteed a future in the democratic party - i.e., to be a lobbyist or consultant. So Stupak ditched his district and voted yes for himself.
Stupak, like the rest of his ideological ilk are nothing more than political, sinister apparatchiks. That's all they are. Tools for the leftard machine. I hope this vermin rots in hell. Strike that, he's a political pussy.
PatCa, you're wondering if Stupak has a cushy job lined up like Tom Scully?
I wouldn't put it past him, but I'd love to see a conservative other than Bruce Bartlett get upset about Scully.
If you watched one of Stupak's last town hall meetings, it was pretty clear that he was a complete hypocrite. He was never pro-life.
AJ brings up a point that bugs the shit out of me; why does anyone in congress get a pension? It's obscene.
At least he won't be there next year to block repeal.
Then there's the case of Billy Tauzin. He used to be a Democrat, so maybe some conservatives will take him for task for helping write Medicare, Part D with terms favorable to the pharmaceutical industry, and then going to work for that industry, collecting (reportedly) a couple million per year for his legislative efforts.
Why does anyone in Congress get a pension? Silly question: Congress gets to write that deal for themselves.
Show me the list of congresspeople who have turned down their pensions.
Bright side - I can now take the money I was going to contribute to his opponent and funnel it to another race. Thanks Bart!
Show me the list of congresspeople who have turned down their pensions.
I think Ron Paul did in fact refuse his congressional pension.
To Stupak, et al:
In 10 years, don't bother playing the "we regret blah blah if only we'd known blah blah were so sorry" bullshit.
Tar & Feather has a long shelf-life.
Fen, any regrets about the Bush administration or GOP leadership in Congress? Earmarks? Medicare, Part D? Rumsfeld? Setting the stage for Obama?
Pogo said...
Future K-street lobbyist, Bart Stupak.
The problem is that ex-congressman lobbyist's have to have friends and at this point Stupak has no friends. Neither Democrats or Republicans trust him. "Nobody every trusts a traitor" are words etched in history.
What good is a rolodex if nobody will return your calls.
As for offering advice to young Congresscritters on how to write legislation or on how to vote? who would listen to somebody who went out after 18 years with a wimper like Stupak.
He sold his soul to Nancy and Barry, but I bet they have no use for him either.
a pretty sad situation for Bart. I almost feel sorry for him. As did Sir Thomas.
"But for Wales?"
Fen, any regrets about the Bush administration or GOP leadership in Congress? Earmarks? Medicare, Part D? Rumsfeld? Setting the stage for Obama?
I won't speak for Fen but I sure as hell have regrets that Bush was the best the GOP could put up. Then I also regret that the best the Dems could put up against him were Mr. Carbon Footprint and Lurch.
To use my favorite analogy it was the choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with lettuce and tomato.
I sort of had hopes that whatshisname and Palin would get elected. Palin had some interesting ideas about actually doing what the VP is supposed to do: Preside over the Senate. Joe Bide didn't even know that the VP was in the Legislative branch of govt.
But overall, I am happy with the way things turned out with Obama getting elected and so on.
Had he not been elected and proven to be so incompetent and tone deaf, the pols in DC, in both parties, would have just kept chipping away at us and we would not have noticed.
Obama and his crew have awakened a sleeping giant. That sound you hear out there is a coming revolution. Peaceful and via the ballot box but a revolution nonetheless.
Finally, people are fed up enough to do something about the pols from both parties in DC.
If not for Obama, would we have seen Stupak retire? Boxer in danger of losing her seat, other retirements?
We need Obama to keep things stirred up. It is only by going on the boil that we will stop accepting that slowing the growth of govt control and spending is a worthy goal. The ONLY worthy goal is shrinking govt.
Take a pledge for November: Do not vote for any incumbent in any party. Don't give them any money, don't give them your vote.
Support challengers in primaries across the US. Support challengers in general elections across the US.
Vote them all out!
Lenin said: "Worse is better" He was absolutely right. Worse IS better. The worse Obama does, the better he stirs people up and the better will be the thumping of ALL incumbents in November.
John Henry
Proud to be a liberal
PS - If you don't understand my pride, I suggest you look up the word "liberal" in the dictionary.
Boxer in danger of losing her seat...
I'd bet good money on that and it's deservedly so. The woman has simply failed to represent a significant fraction of her constituency out here, for example, by her staff always sending courteous but snotty "you're wrong" replies to emailed inquiries.
Who will succeed her? Kaus would be a nice upbraid to her and what her party has become. But who knows, maybe she'll have the decency to retire too?
Here's hoping.
El Pollo:
From what I have read of Kaus, he's as liberal as most Dems. But he does not have the overriding arrogance of a Boxer or a Shumer.
Someone who knows how to do links should link to the Monty Python piece where they encounter the Killer Rabbit and one of them yells "Run away run away" to his fellow knights.
First runaway here. and the rabbit scene is over there
On serious note, I found the whole Stupak affair so depressing. It dealt the death knell to the concept of the Pro-life Democrat
Stupak fought as hard as he could. Why do conservatives turn on their friends?
It dealt the death knell to the concept of the Pro-life Democrat
Stupak's voting for health care reform showed he wasn't a single-issue Congressman.
Why do conservatives turn on their friends?
Remind me again why liberals turned on Lieberman?
former law student said...
Stupak fought as hard as he could. Why do conservatives turn on their friends?
Yeah, I'm sure good old Stupak put up a big fight. So big infact that he makes Titus seem tame by comparison. Can you name the price of the deal that it took Stupak to get on his back with his legs sticking straight up to let Obama to pick which door to put it in? Because Stupak just made whores world-wide seem legit.
c3 said...
On serious note, I found the whole Stupak affair so depressing. It dealt the death knell to the concept of the Pro-life Democrat.
There is no such thing and there never was. If you believe(d) that at any time, then you should get your head checked.
Stupak fought as hard as he could. Why do conservatives turn on their friends?
Huh? He essentially voted for publicly funded abortions. There were a number of Democrats who voted nay, and he wasn't one of them. If he had fought as hard as he could have, he would have joined them, and with his "pro-life" caucus, defeated the legislation. When the going got rough, he bailed and did the easy thing, voting the way that his party leaders told him to vote.
C3:
Thanks! I have now been able to start my weekend with some good laughs from your Monty Python links!
He essentially voted for publicly funded abortions.
Stupak voted for health care reform, with Obama's assurance -- backed up with an Executive Order -- that no Federal money would be used to fund abortions.
I blame the GOP for forcing the House to vote for the Senate bill or no bill at all.
Now I'm wondering: Do Republicans actually care a crap about the unborn? Or were they merely hoping Stupak's scruples would bring down health care reform, and make Obama look ineffective, to boot?
Stupak voted for health care reform, with Obama's assurance -- backed up with an Executive Order -- that no Federal money would be used to fund abortions.
Stupak says he's satisfied with the president's order, to be signed after the bill's passage, though critics point out executive orders can be as easily undone as done.
For some reason people don't trust this President.
Stupak voted for health care reform, with Obama's assurance -- backed up with an Executive Order -- that no Federal money would be used to fund abortions.
An Executive order is designed to function like any other Executive Branch Regulation. It can fill a regulatory vacuum or clarify, but it can't trump Law. In the presence of a Law passed by Congress, it isn't a Line Item Veto. Law always trumps an Order.
If the Law, mandates the Insurance exchanges will collect fees to be used for women's reproductive services, or Federal subsidies will be given to the poor, who will in turn buy insurance on the open market, all of the policies in the market now being required to cover abortions, then that's the law.
The gimmick that they use to say, "No Federal Funds will be used..." is BS when you get to insurance exchanges and the mandate that all policies in the US will now be required to cover abortions. Fed's wont pay, they will force us to pay...
He was Stupak'd.
I say that as somebody who supports some level of abortion rights, but who doesn't think that it should be funded by all Taxpayers (or even the 40% of us who actually fund the country).
Wow. Republicans against representative democracy. Now I've seen it all. I guess representation just isn't populist enough.
I suppose if John Kennedy re-emerged as an Althousian in 2010 he'd have to change the name of his book to Profiles in Cowardice, since standing up to the electorate when your beliefs dictate such a course of action is now not a courageous thing to do in your book.
I'm so glad you felt that way when Bush was prosecuting The War on Terrrrr.
Althouse illuminates - When you play a pivotal role in monumentally important legislation, you'd better face the public and justify what you did with the power they trusted you with.
Definitely standard operating procedure for politicians to face the public and take ownership for their choices. Stupak is that rare exception....so thank you for pointing that out.
I suppose if John Kennedy re-emerged as an Althousian in 2010 he'd have to change the name of his book to Profiles in Cowardice,..
If Jack Kennedy re-emerged anywhere in 2010 he'd instantly recognize the inversion/perversion of his famous words to read: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you"
If Jack Kennedy re-emerged anywhere in 2010 he'd instantly recognize the inversion/perversion of his famous words to read: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you"
I'm truly intrigued by your attempted talking point, Pollo. Do you mean to say that the bill isn't going to create a burden, let alone an undue and insurmountable burden, on the part of the taxpayers? Geez!!! And the Tea Partiers were just starting to have me convinced!
Until someone on the right starts owning up to the obvious fact that market failure is neither a moral virtue nor a necessity, then I guess we'll keep hearing the pretzel logic that ties together endless tax cuts as an answer to everything, a denial of the national benefits of infrastructure, and a "starve the beast" philosophy that only pretends to have any remorse about the 2008 market crash that it didn't seek to prevent and wants to believe that it has more credibility in fixing.
Come on, man. Let's get serious here.
Do you mean to say that the bill isn't going to create a burden, let alone an undue and insurmountable burden, on the part of the taxpayers?
No, I didn't mean to say that and I don't know where you got that and so I won't comment on that.
If you truly wanted to know precisely where my opposition to HCR comes from, I'd be happy to provide a link or two.
But right now I must disappear for a few hours.
What a puss on that guy, and I don't mean his face.
That's fine if you need to go but as long as you're curious, the answer to your first statement lies in the original words of Kennedy that you had inverted.
Contrary to an assertion made here in the comments, there are pro-life Democrats: http://www.democratsforlife.org/.
Also, Ann, you may be right that Stupak lacks the courage to face his constituents in the wake of the health care reform vote. With no direct evidence, that can only be inferred, though it's not an unreasonable inference.
But what do we make of a public servant who resigns before the end of a term without having achieved anything "monumentally important"? That's a charge that might be leveled against Sarah Palin. Some have suggested that she was running away when she resigned as Alaska governor. There is no direct evidence for that either, though it might be reasonably inferred.
But the bottom line is that it's difficult to psychoanalyze people from afar or, absent direct evidence, to know their motives. So, why headline your post, "Stupak declines to defend himself to his constituents"?
Obama and his friends made Stupak an offer he could not refuse.
I wonder whether someone got him to drink the same Kool-Aid that garage was pushing, namely that once the bill was enacted it would miraculously transform into something that the vast majority of citizens would happily embrace and there would be peace and love and the lion would lie down with the lamb and lots of other unlikely things.
Then the bill passed with Stupak's support and guess what? It's no more popular now than it was then.
Nearly every political career ends with a lost election, Stupak managed to beat those odds by leaving on his own terms. But no matter what he says publicly, when the 112th congress convenes in January there is no way Stupak was going to be in it.
Occam's razor suggests that Stupak may just be stupid. This seems likely. So we should rejoice!
Ritmo imagines: "Until someone on the right starts owning up to the obvious fact that market failure is neither a moral virtue nor a necessity, then I guess we'll keep hearing the pretzel logic that ties together endless tax cuts as an answer to everything, a denial of the national benefits of infrastructure, and a "starve the beast" philosophy that only pretends to have any remorse about the 2008 market crash that it didn't seek to prevent and wants to believe that it has more credibility in fixing.
Come on, man. Let's get serious here."
Holy fuck, strawman much? Maybe someone will get serious with you when you make a serious point.
There seems to be a lot of confusion lately about the meaning of the term "strawman".
Let it henceforth be known that someone can make a point without accusing their opponent of arguing otherwise. Maybe it comes as a surprise to you, GMay, that not every point someone makes is a way of accusing someone else of making the opposite point. This may sound strange, but it's true.
That being said, Pollo found something in my words worth addressing, even if that didn't have anything to do with my points regarding what the GOP has got wrong generally when it comes to a coherent understanding of the political economy. You can agree with those points, disagree with them, or ignore them. But they are not straw men. They are, in my view, real problems that the GOP has and will continue to have regardless of whether or not you have determined that they are worth agreeing with or refuting.
But for anything supporting the GOP in all this, I should think these points are worth taking seriously.
Ritmo misfires: "There seems to be a lot of confusion lately about the meaning of the term "strawman"."
Look in a mirror.
Let me help you out, it's not about making the opposite point, it's about misrepresenting your opponents views and attacking that misrepresentation.
Now that we have that cleared up, let's take a look at those strawmen you beat down shall we?
"Until someone on the right starts owning up to the obvious fact that market failure is neither a moral virtue nor a necessity."
Please. Do you really want to get into asinine oversimplifications and outright fantasy? We can do that all day with leftist/modern liberal/progressive philosophy.
"...then I guess we'll keep hearing the pretzel logic that ties together endless tax cuts as an answer to everything"
Endless tax cuts? An answer to everything? See: misrepresentations and oversimplifications.
You'll find plenty on the right and libertarian circles that were critical of tax cuts without a commensurate cut in spending. But you keep up the partisan hackjob. Plenty of conservatives criticized Bush for his abandonment of fiscal conservativism. His lurch leftward is one of the contributing factors to the number of Republican voters who drifted toward Obama.
"a denial of the national benefits of infrastructure"
Yeah, I can hear the whole conservative and libertarian crowd clamoring for us to dismantle our infrastructure.
"...and a "starve the beast" philosophy that only pretends to have any remorse about the 2008 market crash that it didn't seek to prevent and wants to believe that it has more credibility in fixing."
So much wrong with this that I had to highlight the strawman in the quote.
Since your insight into the remorse of "the right" is based on shoddy deductive reasoning in that little snippet, let me fill in your blanks - the market crash was in 2008.
When was it the Democrats achieved majorities in both houses? Next can you give me a brief outline of the legislative measures they took to stave off the impending crisis that was to occur on their watch?
Knowledge check questions:
Which branch of government has the most influence over the economy and the federal budget?
What were the main causes of the economic meltdown?
Look in a mirror.
Why? Do you like what you see that much?
Let me help you out, it's not about making the opposite point, it's about misrepresenting your opponents views and attacking that misrepresentation.
It's about attributing a view to your opponent that they don't necessarily hold in order to attack an argument that they didn't make. Even though you can.
I never accused anyone here that I was speaking to of personally holding any of the views that you mislabel as "straw men".
"Do you really want to get into asinine oversimplifications and outright fantasy? We can do that all day with leftist/modern liberal/progressive philosophy."
If someone hung around here more often, perhaps he'd learn that such behavior is de rigueur for the rightists who comprise the loudest and most numerous Althousians. Par for the course.
"You'll find plenty on the right and libertarian circles that were critical of tax cuts without a commensurate cut in spending. But you keep up the partisan hackjob. Plenty of conservatives criticized Bush for his abandonment of fiscal conservativism. His lurch leftward is one of the contributing factors to the number of Republican voters who drifted toward Obama."
Where? Evidence? People of consequence? Where were they when it mattered? Let me hear the deep voice that was willing to stand up and be counted. Show me a writer who had the balls to say what Frum's got fired for saying now -- back before 2006. Show me a Republican Congressman who did anything about this other than Ron Paul. That's one. And he's been shut out by FOX and the mainstream GOP in more ways than you care to count.
My recollection is that they were more supine than the Democrats. But if you can correct that, cite someone rather than just throwing up more blind assertions.
Yeah, I can hear the whole conservative and libertarian crowd clamoring for us to dismantle our infrastructure.
So do I. Only I'm not being sarcastic and can make the connection between hypothetical calls to dismantle it physically and their real wish to dismantle it financially. This goes for social networks/programs no less than physical ones such as mass transit, etc. See what Althouse thinks of high-speed rail sometime.
So much wrong with this that I had to highlight the strawman in the quote.
Not a strawman. Did I attribute the view to you or anyone else here specifically with whom I am speaking?
It's a mainstream (or at least competitive) view on the right, and if you disavow it and think that more Republicans should disavow it as well, well, then that's the Republicans' problem, not mine.
Since your insight into the remorse of "the right" is based on shoddy deductive reasoning in that little snippet, let me fill in your blanks - the market crash was in 2008.
So what?
When was it the Democrats achieved majorities in both houses? Next can you give me a brief outline of the legislative measures they took to stave off the impending crisis that was to occur on their watch?
Yes! Yes! Congress failed to live up to its historic mission of outlining economic policy for the nation and figured that the president should be responsible for taking the lead on it instead! How unprecedented! How egregious! How much more could one expect of a lowly "MBA President" who only, you know, touted those credentials as if they might have meant something in terms of leadership and setting the course of economic policy. Silly Congress!!!
Next thing you know they might fantasize a victimhood based on not being able to over come something called a presidential veto! Where do they come up with such crazy ideas?
Knowledge check questions:
Which branch of government has the most influence over the economy and the federal budget?
Whichever one wants to exercise the most leadership over it. And what is "influence" supposed to mean in your mind anyway? What a mushy way of muddling things up.
When a president wants to exercise leadership on initiating policies and submitting bills that will successfully set forward bold initiatives or even change the course of the economy - as the conservatives allege, it is not as difficult to do. That kind of leadership should be (and is) easier in an office where you choose your own colleagues (in the form of a cabinet) and stand at the helm of a whole separate branch of government, which is not the way Congress works. You speak directly to the people and not on behalf of of your district. That's what presidents do. FDR did it, Reagan did it. Bush made a lame, half-hearted attempt to do it, and when it came to civil rights legislation, LBJ did it - to great effect.
To deny the power of the bully pulpit is to misrepresent the historical purposes of the separate branches of American government. Of course Congress have to approve certain things, like the budget. But Congress doesn't represent the nation as a whole and it doesn't speak to the country with the leadership attributed to national elections that took place in more than a single district. It also assembles among colleagues (a "clique", so to speak) who chose you as their spokesperson. It's ability to speak with a unified voice, as contrasted to the president's, is therefore greatly compromised. But if it wasn't we would have less standing to call this country a "democracy".
"What were the main causes of the economic meltdown?"
There are probably a bunch of things here on which we would agree, but I wouldn't want to burst your bubble and obviate your conspicuous interest in being so darn disagreeable!
So I'll just leave this unanswered and let you pontificate on this instead unchallenged, since that's all you really want to do.
Oh.
Another president (and a Republican) who took the initiative on major legislation affecting economic policy and otherwise:
Roosevelt, Theodore. See under "trust busting" and conservation. Sorry I missed one.
Guess he just never realized how powerful Congress really was! (Sshhh... don't tell anyone).
Ritmo misses again: "It's about attributing a view to your opponent that they don't necessarily hold in order to attack an argument that they didn't make. Even though you can."
Ok, thanks for rephrasing the definition. Good job. That last little bit is your own invention, so I'll ignore it. Ok, now that you have it in your own words, let's try this again:
"I never accused anyone here that I was speaking to of personally holding any of the views that you mislabel as "straw men".
Technically correct, you didn't accuse anyone here. You accused a broad group of people. Those accusations were asinine, oversimplified, and in some cases, exist only inside your head. You misrepresented the argument of a lot of people. That's a strawman. By definition. Learn it, recognize it, and get over it.
"If someone hung around here more often, perhaps he'd learn that such behavior is de rigueur for the rightists who comprise the loudest and most numerous Althousians. Par for the course."
I'm going to try to save a little time here. I hope you don't mind me quoting you in response to you:
"Where? Evidence? People of consequence?"
I doubt that will save as much time as it should. Let me break it down a little more since you seem to require that - before you made sweeping generalizations in your misrepresentations, now you're redirect this to specific Althousians. Nice try, but a failure.
"Where? Evidence? People of consequence? Where were they when it mattered? Let me hear the deep voice that was willing to stand up and be counted. Show me a writer who had the balls to say what Frum's got fired for saying now -- back before 2006. Show me a Republican Congressman who did anything about this other than Ron Paul."
John McCain? (And I can't stand the guy) Any of the other senators with an R by their name that voted "Nay" on this list? That's just off the top of my head.
Are you really so ignorant of the fiscal conservative base in this country? I mean, you do fulminate about FOX up there, so that tells me you probably are.
Google is your friend, so if you need to learn how to unearth readily available information so you keep from wasting other pople's time, I can give you a quick tutorial.
"My recollection is that they were more supine than the Democrats. But if you can correct that, cite someone rather than just throwing up more blind assertions."
Stop projecting.
"So do I. Only I'm not being sarcastic and can make the connection between hypothetical calls to dismantle it physically and their real wish to dismantle it financially. This goes for social networks/programs no less than physical ones such as mass transit, etc."
Can I quote you again? "Where? Evidence? People of consequence?"
Something about blind assertions being thrown around comes to mind.
"Not a strawman. Did I attribute the view to you or anyone else here specifically with whom I am speaking?"
Ok, you got me. You were painting with a broad brush again, misrepresenting a broad group's arguments with your FOXBECKCHENEY rantings. You're right, that's not a strawman *cough* yeah right *cough* it was just a piss poor argument.
Ritmo continues to fantasize: "It's a mainstream (or at least competitive) view on the right, and if you disavow it and think that more Republicans should disavow it as well, well, then that's the Republicans' problem, not mine.
Hey, can I quote you with the whole 'prove it' thing again? Nah, you know the routine by now I'm sure.
So what?
Hey Tiger, you might not come across as being unable to connect information over a paragraph break if you could hold off on asking stupid questions.
(I'll get your next post...next)
Ritmo tries again: "Yes! Yes! Congress failed to live up to its historic mission of outlining economic policy for the nation and figured that the president should be responsible for taking the lead on it instead! How unprecedented! How egregious! How much more could one expect of a lowly "MBA President" who only, you know, touted those credentials as if they might have meant something in terms of leadership and setting the course of economic policy. Silly Congress!!!"
Translation: I don't have an argument because I don't have a proper understanding of how my own government works, so I'll just sort of ineffectively bash Bush.
"Next thing you know they might fantasize a victimhood based on not being able to over come something called a presidential veto! Where do they come up with such crazy ideas?"
So if one abrogates their congressional responsibility and defers to the President, then they should probably keep their meely mouths shut. I'm reminded of a certain junior senator who voted Yea on Bush's last couple of budgets who then later turned around and criticized them when he got "promoted".
Now, who was that guy?
Fucking geniuses, the lot of 'em.
"Whichever one wants to exercise the most leadership over it. And what is "influence" supposed to mean in your mind anyway? What a mushy way of muddling things up."
Projecting again. What a mushy way of not answering the question. Here, let me help you...again - Congress controls the government pursestrings, and they control the regulatory framework of the economy (to address this and your later argument...also, a hint, we're not talking about civil rights legislation, the Constitution is pretty specific about money and commerce and where congress fits into all that ya know...or maybe you don't). Congress really controls it when they have substantial majorities and a lameduck opposition president with shitty approval ratings and a bunch of Pubbies facing re-election who want to be as far away from the massively unpopular lameduck as possible.
Oh wait, Cheney was still threatening everyone with the Death Star though wasn't he? You're right, the Dems were cowering in fear of that veto. My bad.
I mean really, bully pulpit? Bush? In 2006 and after? That's pretty funny.
Why don't you tell me some of the Democratic congressmen who stood up, with deep voice to be counted among the brave politicians to institute financial reform? The financial meltdown occurred on the Democrats' watch, so where were those champions of the public? (Certainly wasn't Rahm Emmanuel, he was busy making something like $16 mil as a temporary investment banker, but we won't talk about that.)
"There are probably a bunch of things here on which we would agree, but I wouldn't want to burst your bubble and obviate your conspicuous interest in being so darn disagreeable!
So I'll just leave this unanswered and let you pontificate on this instead unchallenged, since that's all you really want to do."
If you don't like invective, stop using it yourself. You're not really fooling anyone into thinking you're interested in an opinion other than your own. Spare everyone the righteous hypocrisy.
You accused a broad group of people.
Oh, the horror! Oh no!
BTW, are you familiar with the fallacy of division? Just wondering.
Those accusations were asinine, oversimplified, and in some cases, exist only inside your head.
As are (and do) your opinions.
Such opinionated and hyperbolic language you use, GMay! Very impressive way to hold a rational dialogue, there.
You misrepresented the argument of a lot of people. That's a strawman. By definition.
Nope. I did not say that everyone who identifies with the right advances such arguments. You are committing the fallacy of division. By definition. Learn it, recognize it, and get over it.
Learn it, recognize it, and get over it.
Oh yeah, and FUCK OFF!!! ;-).
Gawd damn are you predictable and tiresome!
Anyway, FOX News runs the GOP, not vice versa. I've watched enough of them in the past to know that I am uninterested in seeing how the political ringleader for the conservatives intends to run the circus of their short-term tactical thinking. Whatever daily meme gets ratings on Roger Ailes' infotainment empire, the GOP will cater to. It's irresponsible government, it's capricious, and it's very changeable. And although it sets the agenda for the Republicans, I won't pretend that the politicians whose bread is buttered by Roger Ailes have enough integrity and consistency to maintain a principled on anything.
Which is why Ron Paul (who is shunned by the FOXNEWS/RNC machine) stands out. I'm not surprised you missed that part. He's the only one in your caucus that matters. And, oh yeah... just to make you happy, I'll add in Paul Ryan. Does that work for you? (Although he's much too young a neophyte to get to the level of notoriety and effectiveness that even the persona non grata of Ron Paul achieves.
(There. A whole paragraph on conservative consistency and who defines it [and who's just an opportunist]. Hopefully you won't miss all that this time).
Google is your friend, so if you need to learn how to unearth readily available information so you keep from wasting other pople's time, I can give you a quick tutorial.
As GOOGLE News is yours.
The fact is that what I portrayed is the way Republicans are viewed by the mainstream. If you think they are unfairly perceived when it comes to not taking market failure or infrastructure or financial regulation seriously, then maybe you should get them to work on their image problem. Kindly direct your concerns to the Republican National Committee, care of Michael Steele.
Let me know what he says!
Can I quote you again? "Where? Evidence? People of consequence?"
Something about blind assertions being thrown around comes to mind.
For someone who encourages others to use GOOGLE, you don't seem very fond of typing in the words "Ann Althouse" and "high speed rail" into a simple search. So why don't I try doing that for you?
Let me know what you find!
Ok, you got me.
So you finally have to backtrack on half the crap you threw at me early on. Nice. Next time try being less reactive (whatever happened to the cautious, measured, conservative temperament BTW?) and read up on the fallacy of division you keep making.
Thanks for playing.
You're not really fooling anyone into thinking you're interested in an opinion other than your own.
I'm not really interested in the opinions of anyone who doesn't commit what they say to objective reasoning and some semblance of self-scrutiny. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Reason, OTOH...
I frankly don't care if your opinions align with mine or differ from them, as long as there is an added element to redeem them. There are a number of elements that count: Consistency, attempts at sociability, reason, integrity, humor, proportion and limitation, intelligence... I frankly don't care. As long as there is something in your rants to make them less opinionated and worthy of any literary value, then they might actually achieve a status that transcends talk-radio blather. But the standard you aspire to is entirely up to you.
Spare everyone the righteous hypocrisy.
Speak in aphorisms and you will reap what you sow. So practice what you preach if you want to receive what you ask for. Or something.
Good night!
Ritmo: "Very impressive way to hold a rational dialogue, there.
From the guy who later on says:
"Anyway, FOX News runs the GOP, not vice versa."
I get it now, you're a parody of the left. Silly me, I'm still kind of new here, and I considered you somewhat intelligent, but now I realize you're just being intentionally stupid.
It explains your argument by projection (of which your latest reponses were masterworks), your misundersandings of basic logical fallacies, and your paranoia.
Impressive indeed!
I was gonna call it here, but fuck, why not? Let's keep going:
"Hyperbolic language."
This was one of your more entertaining projections. First of all, do you know what that even means? If you do, go ahead and point me to an example where I used it.
Since you obviously missed my sarcasm when I said "ok you got me", I might need to point out to you that snark, condescension, insults, or sarcasm (look that one up) isn't "hyperbole". But you keep thinking I backtracked. Whatever helps massage your brain, Champ.
"'ll add in Paul Ryan. Does that work for you?"
Guess you missed the examples I gave you when asked. Color me shocked!
"The fact is that what I portrayed is the way Republicans are viewed by the mainstream."
The fact is, you don't know how to make a point. You see, you asked for easily available information and I provided it to you anyway. Your use of "mainstream" is not only instructive, but is also what's going to prevent you from making a coherent argument here. Best you ignore it like you did my delivery on your other request for information.
Oh yeah, checked out your search engine query. Didn't really turn up much. I checked several links on the front page of it, so you're going to have to do just weeee bit more work to prove your point. (Remember, I actually showed you some specific links you chose to ignore.)
Again, let me help ya. You were challenged on this point:
"[Speaking of the right in its entirety] a denial of the national benefits of infrastructure"
And to support this assertion, you're trotting out Althouse's views on high speed rail. (I really can't wait until you point me in the right direction beause I'm going to do wone of those predictable things you mentioned - point out the problems in your blatherings.)
Ritmo: "Speak in aphorisms and you will reap what you sow. So practice what you preach if you want to receive what you ask for. Or something.
That whooshing sound was the sound of the point going right over your head.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा