Poor Eric Cantor. Poor Honorable John McCain. Poor Lindsey Graham. It seems those awful Democrats aren't being nice enough to them.
Cantor, the House minority whip, recently released a statement expressing his disappointment that those big old meanies in the Democratic Congress weren't playing nice.
"President Obama promised to put an end to the petty politics that have come to dominate Washington," Cantor sniveled. "Yet today, that message is threatened as the White House and their allies are making political threats rather than crafting a bipartisan economic stimulus plan." (You'd think a guy with a cool title like "Whip" wouldn't be so petulant.)
Honorable John was even more dismayed: "It was a bad beginning because it wasn't what we promised the American people, what President Obama promised the American people, that we would sit down together." Graham, who's on the Senate Banking Committee, whined to ABC News that those bad old Democrats "rammed [the stimulus bill] through the House" after starting out "with the idea, 'We won, we write the bill.'"
I suppose I can understand their pique. After all, during hearings over the stimulus plan, a Democratic committee chairman actually closed down debate by shutting off Republicans' microphones, walking off the podium, and turning the lights off in the hearing room.
Then there was the hearing where the Democratic chairman actually called the Capitol police to have the Republicans removed from the hearing room. And who can forget the snide and condescending statement by the Democratic Rules Committee chairman that the "Republicans are just crying because they're losing on policy debates about job creation"?
Oh, wait. Did I say all those things were done by Democrats? Silly me. Those were actually stunts pulled by the Republican leadership back in the days when the Republicans were in the majority. How soon they forget. Or maybe they think we're so dumb that we'll forget.
Actually, the more you look at it, "hope the American people are so dumb they'll forget the last eight years" seems to be exactly the current Republican strategy. How else can you explain the Republican "plan" to resurrect the economy, which is basically nothing but tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts?
They're apparently hoping and praying that nobody will ask the question, "If tax cuts alone will save the economy, how'd we get into this mess after eight years of Bush tax cuts?" Or maybe they think we're so dumb we'll blame two years of a Democratic-controlled Congress and ignore the fact that that Congress didn't repeal those tax cuts that were supposed to be so great for the economy.
It would also explain the Republican glorification of ignorance and amateurism, which finds its most common expression in bitter denunciations of anyone who shows any sign of being informed or intelligent as an "elitist" and a rhetorical style that consists mainly of variations on "you think you're pretty smart, don't you?"
Rep. Cantor still insists that the Republicans are "committed to working with President Obama to find real economic solutions." Oh, really? You mean the way the Republicans demanded concessions in the stimulus bill, the Democrats agreed to them, and every single one of the Republicans in the House voted against the bill anyway?
You mean the way President Obama came to Capitol Hill to confer with Republicans on the bill, and Minority leader John Boehner announced before he'd even gotten there that he'd instructed the Republican caucus to vote against it?
You mean the way Republican Sen. Judd Gregg claimed he'd be interested in the job of commerce secretary, got a commitment that the Democratic governor of New Hampshire would appoint only a Republican in his place, then withdrew his nomination like a jerky high school kid yanking away an offered handshake and yelling "PSYCH!" That's your idea of "commitment to working with President Obama"? This is like saying Lucy is committed to working with Charlie Brown to kick the football.
Despite it all, President Obama has said he intends to keep working on the whole bipartisanship thing. "The president is always going to reach out to people of both parties," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Washington Post. "That's what he's always wanted. He wants a lot of ideas."
So it looks like this will be Obama's pattern for a while: Reach out a hand, get it slapped aside, get his agenda passed anyway, then have the Republicans whine and cry about being left out. Personally, I think it makes Obama look like he's being played for a chump. But then, I'm willing to admit the possibility that a black guy with an Arab-sounding name who managed to confound the conventional wisdom, beat the presumptive nominee of his party and go on to get elected president may just be smarter than me.
And unlike the Republicans, I don't see that as a downside.
38 comments:
You forgot to mention that John McCain was a POW!
"There you go again ..."
Background music, please: Da-da, da-da (drum roll) Da, da.
Which of these five stories ...
"The president is always going to reach out to people of both parties," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Washington Post. "That's what he's always wanted. He wants a lot of ideas."
I wish THE PRESIDENT would forget about reaching out to either party and start working for the people he just tattooed with trillions more in debt they’ll likely never profit an iota from (including Nancy Pelosi’s mouse research vs. Katrina victims -- guess which got more pork?) … or how about somebody mentioning to the new president (who is all about change) that the bailout money he signed (before and after the presidential election ) over to banks and automakers doesn’t include a single restriction regarding outsourcing (so, we give our money to companies that can then outsourced our jobs--great idea! ... especially since there are so many of them left!) … or how about all the losses most of us have incurred on our 401K programs (an idiotic Bush idea to privatize them was bad enough) … but while we’re bailing out CEO’s intent on partying with OUR money, why not bail out all the lost retirement money of the little people?
That would be change, no?
No … I mean, yes, it would be change, but no, we’re not gonna do that. We’re just going to follow a Bush initiative (the first $700 billion turned $850 billion {with $150 billion tacked on as bribes for 12 Republicans to get their votes} giveaway) with another bailout fiasco (Tarp II) and do away with E-Verify (which will result in yet more outsourcing) and that oversight stuff so often discussed pre-bailout sales pitch … well, who really needs that, right Barney Frank? Sure, Nancy, here’s a few hundred million to study your mice. Katrina victims? Maybe next bailout.
Face it, brother … the difference between both parties at this stage of the game isn’t who presents better anymore … it’s become a race of incompetence. We already know how incompetent Bush was … and so far it seems Obama is doing his best to catch up. I hope he’s half as good at getting things accomplished as you seem to think JD … but so far all I see is him following the lead of the guy he replaced (or he wouldn’t have backed Bush’s bailouts in the first place). Not to mention that Democratic Congress and all it gave Bush years 6-8 of his fiasco presidency.
Now, did I miss one of your angry rants aimed at Democrats again?
Great article, Dusty.
Now, did I miss one of your angry rants aimed at Democrats again?
Since you're apparently not even bothering to read the anti-Wall Street bailout columns I've referred you to, I'm not going to bother any more.
Rant on, Charlie, but the disconnect between what you claim I'm writing and what I actually write gets wider all the time.
I’m just breaking your shoes, Dusty … or this would be one big kumbaya-like tree hugging festival.
This is just more petty bickering which ends up getting nothing accomplished. Thanks for playing. The Republicans were right not to vote for the stimulus bill for one simple reason: spending money you don't have is NOT a good idea.
I learned that the hard way a few years ago when I overdrew on my debit card and didn't realize it for a few days because I wasn't paying attention. I ended up wasting $500 in fees to take care of the situation, just half a grand pissed away because I was careless.
America is already overdrawn and now we just added $2 trillion more. At some point we're going to pay those fees. I don't see where we're getting the money from now, and I definitely don't see how we're going to have the money later.
Don't spend money you don't have. Why is that so hard to understand?
Anyway, Charlie, you shouldn't make ad hominem attacks in conjunction with your arguments. It just makes it too easy for someone to ignore those points and respond only to the personal attacks.
The bottom line is, Democrats and Republicans are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
Don't spend money you don't have. Why is that so hard to understand?
And why have Republicans suddenly started believing this?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer
It wasn't that Reagan's policies proved that government borrowing had no impact on the economy. But his administration's record -- particularly with some years of hindsight -- did give reason to question traditional thinking and provided a new context for future arguments about deficit spending.
"The lesson we should have learned [from those years] is that deficits have little or no short-term economic impacts," said William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.
As important, they appeared to have no impact politically, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Club for Growth who worked in Reagan's budget office.
"Voters and politicians became anesthetized to big deficits," Moore recalled. "Reagan was running these big deficits, and liberals argued it was going to be Armageddon. We were going to ruin the economy. Interest rates were going to go through the roof. And none of these things happened."
Looks like, with deficits as with everything else: IOKIYAR!
John ... I'm having fun with Dusty ("breaking shoes") ad hominemly (so to speak) ... I know my points are valid ... and so is the argument you present about parties being indistinguishable ... but that isn't going to change by discussing it on a blog ... I'm bored at work (a sure sign i'll be laid off soon enough, too) and my hands hurt from practicing 7 stroke rolls on a chair ... substantive change will come long after I'm gone ... and it'll either be through a devastating war or an armed revolution (they call me the house anarchist over at Davey 3x's blog) ... or we'll all just have to suffer the kind of depression that requires an armed revolution of some sort (and that might happen down the near future road) ... but ... my beef is with the two party system (not that we should add a token 3rd party) but that the people (us) should come to terms with just how bad we're all being screwed by this representative of big money government (in whatever cloak they're wearing -- Dem or Rep).
As insulted as the left (and some on the right) was by Sarah Palin, the right is insulted by the Messiah's smooth talking solutions (that oddly mirror those same Reps they just ousted).
Me, I think anyone who signed for these bailouts (both presidents included) should be lined up and shot (along with bankers who gave away/cajoled/sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and the morons who were flipping houses or taking on mortgages they had no shot at paying for {they should be given cardboard boxes to live in and paper clips to fish with}). I think our political system has been so sold out to big business and self interest, it needs one HUGE enema.
I used to be in the finance business myself, brother … and I never lent money to people who couldn’t pay it back. And when they ran into tough times, I worked something out with them. And when they tried to scam me … well, I convinced them not to ... and the few who beat me didn’t encourage others to do so.
Do we really need Harvard PhD’s to handle this economy when a jamoke like me could run a business?
What can I say … I was business savvy awesome.
Somebody please explain to me ... aside from this is part of what is ruining the dopey writing business we're all in (because youngin's won't or can't read anymore) ... what is "IOKIYAR"?
IOKIYAR=It's OK If You're A Republican. "It" being everything from deficit spending to cheating on your wife to shoplifting. It's the only principle the GOP still actually clings to.
Thanks, JD ...
West side.
Thanks, JD ...
West side.
... spending money you don't have is NOT a good idea.
I learned that the hard way a few years ago when I overdrew on my debit card and didn't realize it for a few days because I wasn't paying attention.
While I agree with the statement, it's more complicated.
I have a mortgage. I spent money I didn't have to buy a house.
My neighbour borrowed money to take a vacation in Vegas, spending money he didn't have.
So, some of what your government is doing is taking out mortgages and some of what it's doing is going to Vegas for the weekend.
If your government can attract really good people to work for it, there's a better chance there'll be more mortgages and fewer weekends in Vegas.
John said: If your government can attract really good people to work for it, there's a better chance there'll be more mortgages and fewer weekends in Vegas.
Except the people working for it now (the gov’t) just handed the people going to Vegas (Wall Street, et al) all the gelt.
If our government could attract really COMPETENT people MAYBE we’d have a shot.
Right now, it’s a collection of imbeciles that have as much (or little) knowledge about what to do than anybody selling hot dogs on Sixth Avenue.
Unbelievable. Reading these posts that Rhoades writes, you wonder if he consumed too many lead paint chips as a kid.
(Are you related to George Soros?)
(Are you related to George Soros?)
What Joseph is doing is engaging in a favorite wingnut tactic called "Argument by Attribution," in which he avoids addressing what was actually said by suggesting that it's like something that might be said by someone else the wingnut thinks is somehow sinister. Variants include "You sound just like Michael Moore!" and "That sound likes something Alec Baldwin would say!"
Joseph thinks that this makes him look sharp and witty. In reality, it makes him look like a buffoon for two reasons: (1) this tactic has been used so often that it's as tired and worn out as Sarah Palin's birth canal; and (2)As noted above, it doesn't address anything actually said and could in fact, have been generated by an auto-responding 'bot program. It is, in short, a post completely without useful content and a waste of your time and mine. The management apologizes for the inconvenience to other readers, but brain-dead wingnut trolls are, unfortunately a fact of life in this field of endeavor.
Dusty, Dusty, Dusty ... might I remind you what your post said:
Oh, wait. Did I say all those things were done by Democrats? Silly me. Those were actually stunts pulled by the Republican leadership back in the days when the Republicans were in the majority. How soon they forget. Or maybe they think we're so dumb that we'll forget.
Come on now ... if it's good for the goose ...
Come on tough guy. What do you want, everyone to agree with you on your left-wing rants?
Open it up and be objective.
Man up and quit crying all the time.
Notice how Joseph continues to engage in another tired old wingnut game: the demand for "objectivity" when he himself engages in no such thing. This at least has the virtue of being sort of on-topic, however inadvertently, since Joseph is engaging in exactly the sort of behavior described in the column: demanding "bipartisanship" while engaging in his own partisan and ad hominem attacks.
This tactic is known as "hypocrisy" and it's one of the many reasons his intellectually and morally bankrupt party got their asses kicked in the last two elections, when people finally began to realize that, like the inside of Joseph's head, there is no there there.
I'm actually glad you're here, Joseph: you're providing an instructional example of just how and why your kind ended up being such losers.
We'll save Joseph's inability to distinguish laughter and mockery from "crying" for another lesson.
You guys are out of control ... peace, brothers.
I mean, we're treading on hypocrital politics awesome here.
They'll be no place for us at that great round table in the sky (or below).
Thank God it's Friday ...
I'm one of those conspiracy theorists who believe when Reagan came out with his "trickle-down economics" theory and discovered it didn't work, he inadvertantly stumbled into a bigger weapon every subsequent Republican president has used since. They discoverd that unbridled spending resulted in mega-deficits that would have to be cleaned up by the next Democratic administration, thus preventing them from instituting their social agendas (which all Cons hate). Clinton was able to overcome the Reagan-Bush deficit and generate a surplus, which Shrub quickly destroyed (only took him a few months). Maybe what Obama is doing is giving the Reps back some of their own medicine. Only thing is, I don't believe the Reps would even attempt to break the cycle. Despite all their talk about being fiscally conservative, I don't see any evidence of it at all in the last three republican Adminstrations.
The actual spending damage by Bushie the Second can't even be gauged, because we have no earthly idea exactly how much unbudgeted money was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite all their talk about being fiscally conservative, I don't see any evidence of it at all in the last three republican Adminstrations.
This is because their political strategy in the last three republican administrations has been based on lying though their teeth.
Perhaps (they did lie through their teeth) but what do you call what the Dems just jammed down our throats and up our asses? Were they telling the truth? They didn't read the legislation or give us a chance to chime in.
Did our new President stop and think about just what kind of dirt he dished us in signing legislation that a) continues the outsourcing of american jobs (except now we pay for it)? b) provides more pork than at any other time in history (so much for bringing change to Washington).
Hey, I gotta run ... my 2nd 12 hour weekend shift is over ... and as much as I enjoy bailing out Wall Street (working 7 days a week to do so), I just can't give them OT.
But I will be back to work in the morning (for my weekday gig) ... for now anyway.
Vey iz mir ...
Did our new President stop and think about just what kind of dirt he dished us in signing legislation that a) continues the outsourcing of american jobs (except now we pay for it)
Mind explaining that one, Charlie? ISTR there's a "buy American" provision in there.
b) provides more pork than at any other time in history (so much for bringing change to Washington).
"Pork" is a meaningless word. It's just what politicians call any project they don't like, i.e. one in someone else's district. (projects int their districts are just dandy, of course)
When I hear someone describe a bill as "full of pork" it's hard to keep from rolling my eyes, because the word's been rendered so empty of meaning that it's just tedious.
Tedious?
Okay, you explain how (and why) $150 billion above the original $700 billion proposed bailout (Tarp I) was required for 12 Reps to think it was suddenly a great idea.
Then explain TARP II and where that money is going.
Buy American? Are you kidding me?
China holds the lease, brother. And sorry if I'm not impassioned about "buying American" while my gov't outsources my jobs. What am I supposed to buy American with without a job?
Face it, Dusty, what you have now isn't so much different than what you rail against 99% of your posts.
Now (5:59 a.m.), I have to go to work ...
I missed this: Mind explaining that one, Charlie? ISTR there's a "buy American" provision in there.
Hey, use caffeine in your coffee, brother. Not a single stipulation in either of the stolen money bailouts (stolen from the public). Tarp I and/or II doesn't rescind outsourcing OR put an end to it. How much more DEREGULATED you want it to be? (sarcasm intended)
Understand that or you need more?
We gave money to banks and corporations without any safeguard provisions that they would not continue to outsource OR reverse the outsourcing they've already engaged in.
That clear?
The Messiah gave away OUR money to those who are supposed to employ us ... and the Messiah didn't bother protecting US (the suckers in all this).
You spin it anyway you want ("buy American"--you must be on drugs), but the Messiah, in his anxiousness to appease his party (or why hire all those Clintonians, etc.) just gave the store away without a consideration of the poor dopes working the joint (unless you count those in Chennai, India, etc.).
Excuse the tone ... but you have got to be kidding me trying to defend "pork" or this sham called "stimulus".
Wait, because measures to prevent jobs being sent overseas aren't in TARP, they're never going to be enacted? TARP isn't the last bit of legislation Obama's going to push, Charlie.
And here's the "buy American" clause in the stimulus:
(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.
The provision can be waived under certain circumstances...but the head of the department or agency has to go on record in the Federal Register as saying why. And you can bet the steel companies (who pushed the provision) are going to be watching that.
A lot of foreign countries, including China, are screaming about this, but that's a good sign, actually.
It's not comprehensive, but it's a pretty good start, one month in.
Finally, I'm not defending "pork". I'm saying the word has been rendered meaningless by everyone using it to mean "any spending that doesn't benefit me."
Oh, and by the way...this "calm down" thing you keep repeating over and over every time I answer you on some point you've raised is also getting really old,and pretty transparent as well. Disagreement isn't anger, no matter how hard you try to de-legitimize the very act of debate.
The only thing transparent, my good friend, is your attempts to convince us who don’t agree lockstep with your relentless attacks on Reps (as if the DEMS are any better) is somehow you being objective.
Forget it, brother … that train left the station a long time ago. You’re no where close to objective.
But that’s okay … at least it explains your passion … your sarcasm, well, I guess that’s you … and sorry you don’t like being “calmed down” … but, honestly, brother … you get pretty worked up over this silly shit.
Obambi promised he’d change Washington … as much as I know he can’t do it in one month (or 1 year), I also know when I’ve been sold a bridge … his appointments and everything he’s done since taking office (granted he looks great doing it) I’ve been diametrically opposed to at some level. I’m glad he’s looking out for the Steel industry. Maybe he should focus on the people who elected him (as in protecting their jobs/homes). Even CNN is kind of questioning his campaign promises vs. his record to date … you know, all that bi-partisan rhetoric and those promises about keeping jobs in America (never mind creating them, how about keeping some here?).
Frankly, what’s getting old is your telling us how old our comments are. If you just want to hear anti Republican diatribe only (from the choir then just say so on your blog posts “No disagreeing allowed.”
Debate is a two way street, my man. When you come off like Keitho, I feel compelled to let you know ... not so much to poke fun at you, but to try and show you how one-sided your diatribes usually are.
Now, I'm willing to give Obambi time and I like the guy more than I dislike him. But I don't like him at the expense of anything republican (or anything else). If anything, I like anything else at the expense of anything Republcan or Democrat ... but that's because I'd rather see some of these clowns tossed off a roof than representing me with legislation like either Tarp.
Ah, so you can disagree with me, but I can't disagree with you? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Rhoades: The difference is that Charlie can disagree and remain intelligent and respectful. You my man, present your views with hate and malice.
Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.
You my man, present your views with hate and malice.
Joey, you are the LAST person on Earth that has any right to complain about this. Or was that "eating paint chips as a kid" line from someone else?
Gotta love it...the people who express the most indignation over the "tone" of the discussion are usually the most hateful, and the ones who make the least contribution.
Charlie actually tries to engage in a discussion, Joey. You're just spewing insults, so that's what you get back.
Hey Rhoades: Just read the titles of your own posts and tell me your goal isn't about spewing hate.
And don't try to tell us you are presenting legitimate political points of view! It's all there whittled through your keyboard!
Little Joey, of course, is simply brimming with love, tolerance and and sweetness. And, apparently, incoherence:
It's all there whittled through your keyboard!
WTF?
Love ya man.
See you, I gotta go to work.
Couselor,
Add me to the list of lifelong republicans who voted for Mr. Obama. In the privacy of the voting booth, I did what was right for America, not what was good for my party. Your post reflects my thinking as well. However, I fondly (maybe not so fondly) refer to the naves as "memento" republicans because that can't seem to remember what happenned yesterday.
mTw
Both Parties have been guilty of taking this Country from Freedom to Fascism. We have to STOP thinking of ourselves as Republican or Democrats but, rather as Americans. If we continue to remain divided we ALL will forfeit that which our founders fought so hard to give us FREEDOM. United we stand, divided we fall.
Post a Comment