Quoted by Maureen Dowd, who, naturally, wisecracks that he must now wish he had.
It's not really very funny. On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President? It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing. You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world and putting up with being the biggest punching bag in the world. And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it... and perhaps as able to do the impossible as anyone else (and more able than John McCain).
More Dowd (boldface by me):
Obama’s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?...Re-re-re-spect-spect-spect-spect. (I'm supplying the pop culture reference that I expected to pop out of Dowd, given her usual style and how clearly set up that one seems. Is it a reach to suggest that she wanted to reference the famous Aretha Franklin recording, and she or her editor fretted that it would seem racial?)
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.
The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.
The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229Jay said...
"Um, we're sorry, but the party you vote for stole the "earned benefits" and ran up too big a tab and the programs are insolvent."
Negative. Solvent through 2037.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html
36fsfiend said...
"So we wipe out Social Security and Medicare (which are actually earned benefits, not the GOP code word entitlements) and replace them with what?"
We don't replace them with anything at the federal level. Unlike President Reagan, whom you quote in a subsequent comment, I do not "[]affirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity": I expressly deny it. Maybe after a few decades—it will take that long for the economy to stabalize—we will be in a position to reasses whether there is any economically and constitutionally viable way for the feds to contribute to state programs.
Adequately put, the best way for the federal government to give money to people who need it is to stop stealing it from them in the first place.
"Most on the Left believe Palin is just ignorant."
No, they don't just believe that she is "just ignorant." There is a level of burning personal hatred for her that is absolutely astonishing.
The Crack Emcee said...
"[Simon said, we need to get back to a world where people feel shame when they're caught in a lie.] ROTFLMAO!!!!! Whoo-boy, did you enter this movie late! Like The Eagles said in Hotel California: 'We haven't had that spirit here since 1969'"
Right decade, but I'd say a few years earlier. I wouldn't say that the 1960s are where it all went wrong, but that seems to be the decade when the rot really started in earnest.
Kirk Parker said...
"I'm sure the vast majority of Catholic voters aren't going to worry about something as silly as this"
If comseone can't even level with himself that he's left the Church, the chances of him leveling with the electorate about anything are zero.
Mick said...
"Right, just a blanket 'it fails.' Why does it fail? It is what SCOTUS said in the holding as to whether Virginia Minor was a US Citizen"
No, the court didn't say that. Read more carefully.
"No the objection to Rubio is that he is not a natural born Citizen--- he was born of resident aliens, who did not naturalize for 19 years, probably since they hoped to return to Cuba."
That's not a sound objection, because unless his parents were actually in the service of a foreign government—which they obviously were not—he would have been considered a natural-born subject at common law and thus is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II. You cite—well, you allude to—Wong Kim Ark, but your reading of that is as defective as your reading of Minor. Wong Kim Ark notes that as the common law stood in 1788, "aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." 169 U.S. at 658; accord 1 Blacktone's Commentaries 354 ("Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England"). Don't mistake me for someone unfamiliar with these arguments; before Philip Berg even filed his suit, SF had thoroughly considered and dismissed the issues when they were mooted against McCain. You're recycling these tired nonsense allegations without even bothering to read or understand the source material. Grow up.
36fsfiend said...
"So we wipe out Social Security and Medicare (which are actually earned benefits, not the GOP code word entitlements) and replace them with what?"
We don't replace them with anything at the federal level. Unlike President Reagan, whom you quote in a subsequent comment, I do not "[]affirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity": I expressly deny it. Maybe after a few decades—it will take that long for the economy to stabalize—we will be in a position to reasses whether there is any economically and constitutionally viable way for the feds to contribute to state programs.
Adequately put, the best way for the federal government to give money to people who need it is for it to stop stealing it from them in the first place.
"Most on the Left believe Palin is just ignorant."
No, they don't just believe that she is "just ignorant." There is a level of burning personal hatred for her that is absolutely astonishing.
The Crack Emcee said...
"[Simon said, we need to get back to a world where people feel shame when they're caught in a lie.] ROTFLMAO!!!!! Whoo-boy, did you enter this movie late! Like The Eagles said in Hotel California: 'We haven't had that spirit here since 1969'"
Right decade, but I'd say a few years earlier. I wouldn't say that the 1960s are where it all went wrong, but that seems to be the decade when the rot really started in earnest.
Kirk Parker said...
"I'm sure the vast majority of Catholic voters aren't going to worry about something as silly as this"
If a man can't even level with himself that he's left the Church, the chances of him leveling with the electorate about anything are zero.
Mick said...
"Right, just a blanket 'it fails.' Why does it fail? It is what SCOTUS said in the holding as to whether Virginia Minor was a US Citizen"
No, the court didn't say that. Read more carefully.
"No the objection to Rubio is that he is not a natural born Citizen--- he was born of resident aliens, who did not naturalize for 19 years, probably since they hoped to return to Cuba."
That's not a sound objection, because unless his parents were actually in the service of a foreign government—which they obviously were not—he would have been considered a natural-born subject at common law and thus is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II. You cite—well, you allude to—Wong Kim Ark, but your reading of that is as defective as your reading of Minor. Wong Kim Ark notes that as the common law stood in 1788, "aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." 169 U.S. at 658; accord 1 Blacktone's Commentaries 354 ("Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England"). You're recycling these tired nonsense allegations without even bothering to read or understand the source material, most of which was originally dug up to attack John McCain (I can say that because SF encountered all of it in late summer 2008 when we were debunking those claims) before being transferred to the War on Obama.
You think/thought Obama is normal????
Oh, dear.
Simon said...
“We don't replace them with anything at the federal level. Unlike President Reagan, whom you quote in a subsequent comment, I do not "[]affirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity": I expressly deny it.”
So Ronnie was wrong. Interesting.
So what’s your plan for the elderly? Do people work until they die? Do they work until they’re fired and then live on their savings and if no savings, what, charity? Not everyone is savvy with investing. So again, what’s your plan for my grandparents from the “Greatest Generation” who you seem to imply are of a “ask what your country can give to you" mindset. Does that mindset apply to veterans as well?
“Maybe after a few decades—it will take that long for the economy to stabilize—we will be in a position to reassess whether there is any economically and constitutionally viable way for the feds to contribute to state programs.”
How will these state programs work? How about if one ends up retiring in a different state then were he/she worked? How does that work?
“Adequately put, the best way for the federal government to give money to people who need it is for it to stop stealing it from them in the first place.”
My grandparents didn’t believe the government was stealing from them because of the payroll taxes. Personally, I think a bigger theft occurred on Wall Street with the bailout.
“No, they don't just believe that she is "just ignorant." There is a level of burning personal hatred for her that is absolutely astonishing.”
The same could certainly be said about the Right’s feelings on Obama. An astonishing amount of disrespect has been shown to this President who, regardless what many believe, is the Commander-in-chief of this nation which is at war.
36fsfiend said...
"So Ronnie is wrong. Interesting."
President Reagan was wrong about some things. Is that really a shock? Even the Pope is only infallible in a very narrow set of circumstances; it would be unreasonable to expect Reagan to do better.
"So what’s your plan for the elderly? [yadda yadda yada]"
I don't have one. Nor am I obligated to. That's up to smarter people than me in state capitols around the country to figure out.
"How will state programs work? How about if one ends up retiring in a different state then were he/she worked? How does that work?"
Similarly, that's not for me to figure out. I'm not obliged to because it's irrelevant to my point, which is that the Federal government is on dubious Constitutional ground (and financial ground that is shaky indeed) in providing these programs.
"My grandparents didn’t believe the government was stealing from them because of the payroll taxes."
Folks like Warren Buffett would probably agree with them, since he urges the government to take more of their money, while I doubt that he encourages people to mug him at gunpoint. So what? That a few people hand over their money willingly didn't save the highwayman from his appointment with the hangman. We have never limited criminality to the subjective experience of the victim; When government takes more than it needs, or takes money to supply needs that it has no business meeting (for one reason or another), taxation becomes theft.
"Personally, I think a bigger theft occurred with Wall Street and the bailout."
I tend to agree: As I just said, when government takes public money to supply needs that it has no business meeting, the taxation necessary to support that move becomes theft.
"The same could certainly be said about the Right’s feelings on Obama."
Oh, not really. President Obama is pilloried for his politics, but there isn't an awful lot of personal animus toward him; once he leaves office, I doubt anyone will care about him. Nor have I seen any disrespect for his office, as opposed to the occupant—a distinction that it would be surprising for the left to have forgotten after eight years of boiling vitriol for President Bush. By contrast, the left's hatred for Palin is omnipresent and deeply personal. I suppose that it's possible that you're hearing that kind of rhetoric directed at Obama and I just tune it out, but my subjective experience has been that Palin hatred is far more personal and far more broadly-indulged.
Simon,
How long have you been in the US? Even Catholics here get affected with the American way of doing religion.
And again, I'm not saying US Catholics would never pay attention to this factor, I'm saying it won't be remotely important if the other viable candidates are even more questionable in their religious affiliations (*cough* Obama *cough cough*).
Simon said...
“President Reagan was wrong about some things. Is that really a shock? Even the Pope is only infallible in a very narrow set of circumstances; it would be unreasonable to expect Reagan to do better.”
Listening to Sarah Palin – yes.
“I don't have one. Nor am I obligated to. That's up to smarter people than me in state capitols around the country to figure out.”
“Similarly, that's not for me to figure out. I'm not obliged to because it's irrelevant to my point, which is that the Federal government is on dubious Constitutional ground (and financial ground that is shaky indeed) in providing these programs.
Come on Simon. My grandparents hear Ryan wants to cut spending, Perry saying Social Security might be unconstitutional and Marco Rubio say Social Security, Medicare, and other safety net programs “actually weakened us as a people.” They are good Blue collar Americans and registered Republicans who love their country and worked all their lives. And now they’re frighten. Give me a few bullets to help allay their fears.
“Folks like Warren Buffett would probably agree with them, since he urges the government to take more of their money, while I doubt that he encourages people to mug him at gunpoint. So what? That a few people hand over their money willingly didn't save the highwayman from his appointment with the hangman. We have never limited criminality to the subjective experience of the victim; When government takes more than it needs, or takes money to supply needs that it has no business meeting (for one reason or another), taxation becomes theft.”
How about those corporations that off shore their earnings so as not to pay taxes? How about GE with zero taxes for 2009? How about subsidies for Big Oil who are making billions in profit? Is that not a theft against those like my grandparents who have always paid their taxes? How about making sacrifices to support the war effort? Are those who don’t want to pay their taxes not being a parasite on the sacrifices made by the troops?
“I tend to agree: As I just said, when government takes public money to supply needs that it has no business meeting, the taxation necessary to support that move becomes theft.”
Well unfortunately it looks like the bankers are getting away with it.
“Oh, not really. President Obama is pilloried for his politics, but there isn't an awful lot of personal animus toward him; once he leaves office, I doubt anyone will care about him. Nor have I seen any disrespect for his office, as opposed to the occupant”
Yelling out “You lie” during a joint session of Congress. How is that not being disrespectful to the office of the President? I don’t recall that ever happening to Bush.
“By contrast, the left's hatred for Palin is omnipresent and deeply personal. I suppose that it's possible that you're hearing that kind of rhetoric directed at Obama and I just tune it out, but my subjective experience has been that Palin hatred is far more personal and far more broadly-indulged.”
I think pictures of shot monkeys, Obama in head hunter garb, comments with racist undertones the whole birther, Muslim, Kenyan, socialist, Nazi, communist thing are pretty personal shots.” Is he a Sarah Palin “real American”?
Come on Simon. My grandparents hear Ryan wants to cut spending, Perry saying Social Security might be unconstitutional and Marco Rubio say Social Security, Medicare, and other safety net programs “actually weakened us as a people.” They are good Blue collar Americans and registered Republicans who love their country and worked all their lives. And now they’re frighten.
They well should be. Selfish fucks, they ruined this country.
Alex said...
"They well should be. Selfish fucks, they ruined this country."
What has been your great contribution to this country?
Simon,
Rereading your previous entry, you state:
“When government takes more than it needs, or takes money to supply needs that it has no business meeting (for one reason or another), taxation becomes theft.”
What’s your thought on defense spending? Do we really need to spend more than the next 15 nations combined? And it not, would you consider that a case of the government supplying needs that it has no business meeting – unnecessary give always to defense contractors? If so, do you consider that theft and favor cuts in defense spending?
What has been your great contribution to this country?
I wont' get into specifics, but I do important work. I'm a taxpayer, with no expectations of collecting social security because the fucking boomer generation ruined this country.
Alex said...
"I wont' get into specifics, but I do important work."
So did my grandparents and other members of my family. Including putting their asses on the line during war.
"I'm a taxpayer, with no expectations of collecting social security because the fucking boomer generation ruined this country."
And the bankers and corporations have had no part in causing damage in this country? OK.
Has anyone in your family ever received SS? I'm assuming yes. Are they selfish fucks also?
I'll venture to said that you won't mail back any of your SS checks.
Here's some of the destruction caused by your banks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/05/us-lawsuit-against-britis_n_949184.html?1315250026
36fsfiend said...
"Come on Simon. My grandparents hear Ryan wants to cut spending, Perry saying Social Security might be unconstitutional and Marco Rubio say Social Security, Medicare, and other safety net programs “actually weakened us as a people.” They are good Blue collar Americans and registered Republicans who love their country and worked all their lives. And now they’re frighten. Give me a few bullets to help allay their fears."
Allay their fears? It sounds to me like their concern is that someone might decide to turn off the entitlement spigot. Well, that being so, I'm not going to lie to you: It sounds to me like they understand perfectly well what I'm advocating.
Now, you said above that they didn't feel that their taxes were theft. I suggest that they simply didn't understand that the government was taking their money and giving it to other people. The government didn't take their money and put it away somewhere safe to give back to them later. This wasn't an IRA or what-have-you. This was the government taking their money and giving it to other peoplem, with no guarantee that you'll get a penny of it back. Still think it isn't theft?
The best I can give you is that very few Republicans would go anywhere near as far as I would, as we have already seen. It never ceases to amaze me, actually, that so many Republicans talk about cutting government spending balk when someone proposes to cut the things that really cost money. It's as if they don't know where the spending is! You'd think that no one would really believe that we could balance the budget by cutting foreign aid and the NEA, but I saw a poll recently that found a frightening number of people who believe that foreign aid accounts for 20% of the budget.
None of this makes me happy, by the way. The Church's teaching on the obligations of government to take care of the needy is quite explicit, and I don't have a lot of truck with people who treat the Magisterium as an à la carte menu, whether right dissenters or left dissenters. But the fact is—a fact that is not given adequate weight by the bishops or accounted for at all by the Holy See—that applying those teachings to the current situation in the United States is not so simple because of the colossal weight of the mistakes that have been made. Our financial situation has been ruined by promises that have outstripped out means, to the point that the status quo is itself at odds with the needs of the poor. I do not say that government should disobey the teachings of the Church, but that in the circumstances that obtain in America in 2011, we need to have a complete reset so that we can evaluate just how much government can genuinely provide. It will take years. No one's happy about that, but if you want someone to blame, blame decades of liberals for creating these entitlements, and decades of politicians of all stripes lacking the courage to face what should have been obvious to everyone. But while making ourselves happy or assigning blame are fun, they aren't productive. They don't fix the problem.
36fsfiend said...
"How about those corporations that off shore their earnings so as not to pay taxes? How about GE with zero taxes for 2009? How about subsidies for Big Oil who are making billions in profit?"
In the case of subsidies: Yes. That's theft. And if there's a good legal way to prevent corporations offshoring to evade taxes, I actually support it.
“Oh, not really. President Obama is pilloried for his politics, but there isn't an awful lot of personal animus toward him; once he leaves office, I doubt anyone will care about him. Nor have I seen any disrespect for his office, as opposed to the occupant”
"Yelling out 'You lie' during a joint session of Congress. How is that not being disrespectful to the office of the President? I don’t recall that ever happening to Bush."
In what way is it? It was certainly disrespect for the President. (And deserved disrespect, too: IIRC, he was lying, and if he wasn't at that particular moment, someone had to speak out where Justice Alito coudn't.) I have no idea how you reach the conclusion that that was being disrespectful to the office of the President. (If you want my opinion, the President shouldn't have even been there. Presidents should never address Congress in person, save perhaps in extraordinary situations.)
" think pictures of shot monkeys, Obama in head hunter garb, comments with racist undertones the whole birther, Muslim, Kenyan, socialist, Nazi, communist thing are pretty personal shots.” Is he a Sarah Palin “real American”?
Most of those strike me as commentaries on his politics, and the birther thing is simply a desperate and lazy attempt to nullify all the political effects of his Presidency (they have formed the incorrect idea that if Obama is held to have been ineligible, nothing he has signed will remain valid). As to comments with racist undertones, I'm afraid your side has largely eliminated racism as a serious charge in politics. When you have Andre Carson and Jim Clyburn and John Lewis and so on claiming that comments that were quite obviously political disagreement were racially motivated, it makes it all-but impossible to take seriously and such claims. It's the boys who cried wolf, you see. As to head hunters and monkeys, I've not seen any of that, although as I said, maybe I just don't see it and it happens anyway. There's so much that happens in these days that I'm pleased not to see.
36fsfiend said...
"What’s your thought on defense spending? Do we really need to spend more than the next 15 nations combined? And it not, would you consider that a case of the government supplying needs that it has no business meeting – unnecessary give always to defense contractors? If so, do you consider that theft and favor cuts in defense spending?"
Defense is, of course, a core function of governments generally and the federal government in particular. What's more, I take an extremely deferential view toward the military's de facto control of its internal affairs. For example, I infuriated my liberal friends by insisting that the military's determination of the need for DADT should be the last word; after the military determined that it was done with DADT, I infuriated my conservative friends by holding to the same position. Generally, "law should allocate decisionmaking to the institutions best suited to decide particular questions, and that the decisions arrived at by those institutions must then be respected by other actors in the system, even if those actors would have reached a different conclusion," Young, Institutional Settlement in a Globalizing Judicial System, 54 Duke L. J. 1143, 1150 (2005),
and specifically, there are some issues on which the military has expertise that civilians simply lack. The civilian branches of government should therefore defer. (A good introduction to my position is this post.) If you want to annoy just about everyone, consistently apply neutral principles! (A good starting point on that is the introduction to this post.)
That deference is at its zenith where purely internal matters of military governance are concerned, but it is still exceptionally high so far as what we might call "quartermaster" issues: What the military needs in terms of material support to discharge its resposibilities. We should impede the military's considered judgment on such matters only when it is absolutely clear that they have abused their discretion.
With these points in mind, I will say that personally, I am entirely open to reallocations of funding, and even outright cuts in military spending, so long as such cuts are consistent with the military's own evaluation of its needs. (Happily, I am told that my view that we should scale back our permanent commitments overseas is not without support in the military.)
Simon said...
“Allay their fears? It sounds to me like their concern is that someone might decide to turn off the entitlement spigot. Well, that being so, I'm not going to lie to you: It sounds to me like they understand perfectly well what I'm advocating.”
Well, again, when you hear Ryan say he wants to cut spending on SS and Medicare, Perry say Social Security might be unconstitutional and Rubio say SS, Medicare, and other safety net programs “actually weakened us as a people” how should people receiving support from those programs react? You made a comment in the original post about Social Security and Medicare creating a “what can the country do for me” mindset. As a retired military member I take some offense to that perception. And how is it different for defense where we expect the government to provide security (which I was more than willing to help provide). Are you willing cut back on unnecessary defense spending as well?
“Now, you said above that they didn't feel that their taxes were theft. I suggest that they simply didn't understand that the government was taking their money and giving it to other people. The government didn't take their money and put it away somewhere safe to give back to them later. This wasn't an IRA or what-have-you. This was the government taking their money and giving it to other people, with no guarantee that you'll get a penny of it back. Still think it isn't theft?”
The government isn’t “giving” money to other people. We are all paying into the pot and we received back a figure based on what we earned over our work lifetime. It's not free.
“The best I can give you is that very few Republicans would go anywhere near as far as I would, as we have already seen. It never ceases to amaze me, actually, that so many Republicans talk about cutting government spending balk when someone proposes to cut the things that really cost money. It's as if they don't know where the spending is! You'd think that no one would really believe that we could balance the budget by cutting foreign aid and the NEA, but I saw a poll recently that found a frightening number of people who believe that foreign aid accounts for 20% of the budget.
OK. But if we’re going after SS, Medicare and Medicaid, then I think defense needs to be on the table as well. There’s waste there as well - I've seen it first hand.
“Our financial situation has been ruined by promises that have outstripped out means, to the point that the status quo is itself at odds with the needs of the poor. I do not say that government should disobey the teachings of the Church, but that in the circumstances that obtain in America in 2011, we need to have a complete reset so that we can evaluate just how much government can genuinely provide. It will take years. No one's happy about that, but if you want someone to blame, blame decades of liberals for creating these entitlements, and decades of politicians of all stripes lacking the courage to face what should have been obvious to everyone. But while making ourselves happy or assigning blame are fun, they aren't productive. They don't fix the problem.”
Again, I don’t consider SS and Medicare entitlements. We contribute money to them so I use the term earned benefits. And I would argue that a lot of our current problems are also caused by out of control defense spending, endless wars for which we don’t want to pay for, erosion of out tax base by corporations sending jobs overseas to nations who do not value life as we do with lower standards of living and, yes, the Bush tax cuts.
Spending cuts and revenue increases through a revised tax code must both be on the table.
Simon said...
“In the case of subsidies: Yes. That's theft. And if there's a good legal way to prevent corporations offshoring to evade taxes, I actually support it.”
Concur.
"Yelling out 'You lie' during a joint session of Congress. How is that not being disrespectful to the office of the President? I don’t recall that ever happening to Bush."
“In what way is it? It was certainly disrespect for the President. (And deserved disrespect, too: IIRC, he was lying, and if he wasn't at that particular moment, someone had to speak out where Justice Alito coudn't.) I have no idea how you reach the conclusion that that was being disrespectful to the office of the President. (If you want my opinion, the President shouldn't have even been there. Presidents should never address Congress in person, save perhaps in extraordinary situations.)”
I don’t believe he was lying. In any event, the decorum of the proceedings is that it is the time for the President to speak and everyone else listens. Joe Wilson and Alito should have aired any grievances after the event was over. It’s not UK Parliament Question time.
"think pictures of shot monkeys, Obama in head hunter garb, comments with racist undertones the whole birther, Muslim, Kenyan, socialist, Nazi, communist thing are pretty personal shots.” Is he a Sarah Palin “real American”?
“Most of those strike me as commentaries on his politics, and the birther thing is simply a desperate and lazy attempt to nullify all the political effects of his Presidency (they have formed the incorrect idea that if Obama is held to have been ineligible, nothing he has signed will remain valid). As to comments with racist undertones, I'm afraid your side has largely eliminated racism as a serious charge in politics. When you have Andre Carson and Jim Clyburn and John Lewis and so on claiming that comments that were quite obviously political disagreement were racially motivated, it makes it all-but impossible to take seriously and such claims. It's the boys who cried wolf, you see. As to head hunters and monkeys, I've not seen any of that, although as I said, maybe I just don't see it and it happens anyway. There's so much that happens in these days that I'm pleased not to see.
“I'm afraid your side has largely…”. Your assuming something here that is not true.
“When you have Andre Carson and Jim Clyburn and John Lewis and so on claiming that comments that were quite obviously political disagreement…”
Like spitting on someone? Isn’t that assault?
“As to head hunters and monkeys” Courtesy of the Google:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/18/new-york-post-cartoon-race
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing.php
Given the President’s race, I would call those pictures pretty racist.
Simon said...
"For example, I infuriated my liberal friends by insisting that the military's determination of the need for DADT should be the last word; after the military determined that it was done with DADT, I infuriated my conservative friends by holding to the same position."
DOD takes its orders from the civilian leadership, per the Constitution. Certainly, military leadership will be asked for their inputs on policy changes, but once the policy is made law we salute smartly and carry on.
"I will say that personally, I am entirely open to reallocation of funding, and even outright cuts in military spending, so long as such cuts are consistent with the military's own evaluation of its needs. (Happily, I am told that my view that we should scale back our permanent commitments overseas is not without support in the military.)"
I agree. And yes, we probably need to scale back our foot print overseas. Those installations are expense to support and garrisoning units back here in the mainland will help the economies of the local communities.
36fsfiend said...
"DOD takes its orders from the civilian leadership, per the Constitution. Certainly, military leadership will be asked for their inputs on policy changes, but once the policy is made law we salute smartly and carry on."
I am, of course, well aware of that, and I agree so far as it goes. :) What I am saying is that civilian control of the military should be conducted with great deference to the military's own views. So, for example: Does allowing homosexuals to serve on active duty in the military have any impact on military preparedness? I have no idea, and I can assure you that neither the New England liberal nor the southern conservative, despite their strong views on the moral rights and wrongs of homosexuality, has no better idea than I do. I have an opinion, and so do they, but in the last analysis, the people who are best placed to know, and whose incentive structure best fosters making a good call, are the military themselves. (That's the legal process concept of institutional settlement, to which I alluded above.) It would have been constitutionally proper but utterly foolish for Congress to interject its own political sensibilities over military recomendations. So to it is with cutting the funding for program X or base Y or regiment Z. Congressional exercise of its authority (and Presidential, for that matter) should always be highly deferential. You salute smartly and carry on; they owe you at least the same courtesy, because after all, they aren't the ones at greater risk of being killed if a bad call is made.
36fsfiend said...
"I don’t believe he was lying. In any event, the decorum of the proceedings is that it is the time for the President to speak and everyone else listens. Joe Wilson and Alito should have aired any grievances after the event was over. It’s not UK Parliament Question time."
I would have to go back and check, because I don't now remember what Wilson was yelling about, but really, who has the energy. My recollection was that Wilson was right, but if he wasn't, well, Obama lied about plenty of other things in his speeches—Citizens United, for instance, Alito's beef—so he got no more than was coming to him. If I might be forgiven for being a little instrumentalist, if the President doesn't want to be heckled, he is under no obligation to be there. I'd like to encourage him to indulge that fit of pique and never go back: For one half of our history, the State of the Union—the closest thing the President has an obligation to speak to Congress at all—was delivered in writing, and I favor a return to that tradition.
But we're getting off track. I'm not here to defend Wilson's sense of decorum. Even stipulating for sake of argument that Wilson was wrong and in breach of etiquette, the fact remains that it was disrespect for this President rather than the office.
Likewise, I'm not going to defend a bunch of racist pictures. If it happens, as it apparently does, it's deplorable. I don't see it, and I certainly don't think it's as widespread or vicious as the Palin hatred is.
"You['re] assuming something here that is not true."
I shall rephrase. When you have a lot of people—including but not limited to Andre Carson, Jim Clyburn, and John Lewis—crying racism on comments that are quite obviously no more than political disagreement, it's hard to take claims of racism seriously. The term has been hollowed out—deprived of any meaning—by its misuse as a cheap and calumnious way to dismiss critics of President Obama. Thus, I'm afraid that whatever rhetorical force it used to have to call someone a racist, well, it's done. Used up. And that's sad, because there really is actual racism out there, but it's just not a claim that can be taken at face value any more in a political context.
Simon,
I completely agree with your position on how policy changes in the military should be made. I believe that's what occurred with DADT.
Funding issues get complicated because reps/senators on both sides will always want to protect the projects/programs that affect their constituency. Unfortunately, that sometimes results in the waste of tax dollars.
I have to plead a rain check on replying the last one; it's bed time. The holiday's been nice, but it's back to business tomorrow. I'll try to pick up at lunchtime.
Simon said...
“My recollection was that Wilson was right, but if he wasn't, well, Obama lied about plenty of other things in his speeches-Citizens United, for instance, Alito's beef-so he got no more than was coming to him. If I might be forgiven for being a little instrumentalist, if the President doesn't want to be heckled, he is under no obligation to be there. I'd like to encourage him to indulge that fit of pique and never go back: For one half of our history, the State of the Union-the closest thing the President has an obligation to speak to Congress at all-was delivered in writing, and I favor a return to that tradition.”
Let’s face it, unfortunately all politicians lie to some extent. That being said, I believe Republicans should confront the President over legitimate issues, in the correct forum, and not just because they don’t happen to like the man. Birtherism, claiming he is a Moslem, a communist, a Nazi, etc. to me, at least, makes the party look bad.
“...the fact remains that it was disrespect for this President rather than the office.”
Maybe. I still look at it as disrespect for the office because Wilson violated the rules of decorum for the event. He disrespected the rules of the Congress in effect when a president is present and giving a prepared speech.
“Likewise, I'm not going to defend a bunch of racist pictures. If it happens, as it apparently does, it's deplorable. I don't see it, and I certainly don't think it's as widespread or vicious as the Palin hatred is.”
Again, I think the Republicans should be better then that. Many call themselves Christians. They should act accordingly. As for hatred towards Obama and Palin, I personally think they may be on the same level. However, I don’t agree with some of the divisive things Palin says, such as “real Americans”. That’s code. Here’s what Lee Atwater, mentor to Karl Rove , said about code words:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er." By 1968 you can't say "ni**er" — that hurts you. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni**er, ni**er.”
“Real Americans” is a dog whistle and it stirs up hatred from the Left.
Also, her use of false inflammatory remarks like “death panels” doesn’t help and causes resentment and anger directed towards her. You may not like the health care act, but there are no death panels. Words have meaning, or they should, unless you’re lying. You may not like Obama but I don’t believe he has used vitriolic terms towards Palin.
“I shall rephrase. When you have a lot of people-including but not limited to Andre Carson, Jim Clyburn, and John Lewis-crying racism on comments that are quite obviously no more than political disagreement, it's hard to take claims of racism seriously. The term has been hollowed out-deprived of any meaning-by its misuse as a cheap and calumnious way to dismiss critics of President Obama.”
Again, I believe Clyburn was spit on by a protestor at the time. That’s assault. And once again, I think the Republicans should take the high ground and stay above the fray.
Post a Comment