I haven't posted much in the last couple of days because nothing really has happened worth comment. Obama gave a "non-state of the union" speech last night, and the only news out of it was Governor Jindal did himself no favors last night. Having heard sound bites of him before, I thought that perhaps Republicans had found themselves someone who really could carry their message. If last night was any example, no.
I'll be gracious here and say he performed well below his own standard of oratory. But I have heard him speak comfortably. And he's a master of bullshit. I have to work with guys like this, and they're pure bullshit artists, which is to say that the cadence, the manner of speech--there's just something off about it. If you're around people like Jindal long enough, you realize that there's absolutely no way to tell whether or not he's lying, so you just have to assume he's lying all of the time. And his presentation is such that there's no room for catching him midsentence to call him out on his lie.
Here's a normal bullshitter:
Paragraph detailing a series of events, altogether untrue. Lying at length. A cut from broad cloth lie.
Here's an above average bullshitter: Truth. Truth. Bullshit. Truth. Gotta run. An above average bullshitter will tell you things that are true, or turn out to be true, to obfuscate his own lies.
Here's a master bullshitter:
aergaqrbgarvaerhwgWEGAEHGFVAEHBAEFASERBAaervasrvaevaegaegaergaergaergagf.
There are about 20 discordant lies delivered with so much haste that by the time you've realized that the first thing out of his mouth is a lie, he's 4 topics head in the conversation. It's a blitzkrieg of lies; the shock and awe of bullshitting.
Now, his greatness at bullshitting is beyond dispute. He is amazing at it. But the problem with being that good at being so full of shit is that it is not a good long term strategy.
I know Jindal has higher aspirations, and if he wants to be a Senator, he can be a Senator, and if he wants to be a vice president, he can probably do that too. But he had better put those presidential aspirations up on the shelf, next to the dreams of becoming an astronaut, because there is absolutely no way he can have a dialogue with the American people.
So, as a spokesman for the Republican party, fantastic. Delivering criticisms and becoming a face of Republican opposition, sure. But he's not the guy you want to be selling new ideas. He can talk your ear off, but he, like me, has nothing to say.
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama's no-good, very bad day.
Obama really had a horrible day on Wednesday. I personally would have been rooting through the presidential liquor cabinet that night.
On Tuesday, a member of his National Economic Council, Jim Owens, says that his company, Caterpillar, will be able to rehire some of the 22,000 laid off workers at their production facilities if the stimulus bill passes. That same day, the stimulus bill passes the senate.
Wednesday, Obama flies to Peoria to make an impromptu appearance at a Caterpillar facility to tout his stimulus bill, and reiterate Owen's decision to rehire the laid off workers, now that the stimulus bill has passed. While Air Force One is in route to Peoria, Obama's pick for commerce secretary withdraws his name for consideration.
After Obama's speech, Jim Owens says that there is a strong possibility of more lay offs before Caterpillar will be in a position to call back affected workers, indicating that the soonest the latter action can occur would be toward the end of the third quarter, or fourth quarter.
On Tuesday, a member of his National Economic Council, Jim Owens, says that his company, Caterpillar, will be able to rehire some of the 22,000 laid off workers at their production facilities if the stimulus bill passes. That same day, the stimulus bill passes the senate.
Wednesday, Obama flies to Peoria to make an impromptu appearance at a Caterpillar facility to tout his stimulus bill, and reiterate Owen's decision to rehire the laid off workers, now that the stimulus bill has passed. While Air Force One is in route to Peoria, Obama's pick for commerce secretary withdraws his name for consideration.
After Obama's speech, Jim Owens says that there is a strong possibility of more lay offs before Caterpillar will be in a position to call back affected workers, indicating that the soonest the latter action can occur would be toward the end of the third quarter, or fourth quarter.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Poor Arlen
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Another casualty of the South rising again, otherwise known as "what hath conservatives wrought."
To sum up, the entire stimulus bill has been junked by Republicans, of whom, Obama has received 0 votes from the House, and presumably 3 votes in the Senate.
Statesmanship, indeed.
Next time, make these motherfuckers filibuster.
$650 billion.
That's how much it's going to cost you for Obama to learn his lesson about bipartisanship.
Assuming any kind of stimulus could help at this point, the stimulus bill appears to be a wasted opportunity. In the end, only about $150 billion would go towards infrastructure projects which would be the best use of stimulus funds. It isn't that the other $650 billion or so was absolutely wasteful--the vast majority of it will be spent on good things. However, with the concessions and tax cuts gained by the Republicans, who will still vote nay, I'm afraid we're left with a spending bill which, in addition to not doing nearly enough to make up for consumer spending in any meaningful way, will also do very little to make it easier to pay back the money.
So the question is, was there a real opportunity to pick up bipartisan support that Obama and the democrats completely flubbed, or was every concession in the process only doomed to weaken the stimulative effects of the bill?
This leads to an important question: if the Republicans had no intention on voting for the bill, no matter what it contained, what was the point in bringing them into the legislative process at all? What Gregg is saying is, and what Limbaugh has emphatically stated, is that the Republicans' only interest is that the Democratic agenda fails, regardless of its intention, or regardless to the interests of the American people.
For the sake of being charitable, allow me to posit that it would seem unfair to say that Republicans value partisan advantage over national interest. After all, would not partisan opposition to a party, whom you believe are not acting in the national interest, be in the national interest?
I would accept this theory, had I not considered their record of governance.
While enjoying a comfortable majority in Congress and the Supreme Court, and with control of the executive, Republicans should have balanced the budget, cut government spending, in particular, cut entitlement programs like social security and medicare, given states more latitude to adopt their own policies, increased individual freedom, repealed gun control legislation, and worked to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. In short, accomplish their agenda.
In fact, we see that Republicans have done none of these things. They do not seem to be interested in enacting their own agenda, let alone that of the opposition's.
Therefore, since they do not seem interested in advancing what they believe to advance the national interest, can we not conclude, then, that their entire philosophy is maintaining partisan advantage?
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the message for selling their massive stimulus bill last week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were savaging the legislation.
Assuming any kind of stimulus could help at this point, the stimulus bill appears to be a wasted opportunity. In the end, only about $150 billion would go towards infrastructure projects which would be the best use of stimulus funds. It isn't that the other $650 billion or so was absolutely wasteful--the vast majority of it will be spent on good things. However, with the concessions and tax cuts gained by the Republicans, who will still vote nay, I'm afraid we're left with a spending bill which, in addition to not doing nearly enough to make up for consumer spending in any meaningful way, will also do very little to make it easier to pay back the money.
So the question is, was there a real opportunity to pick up bipartisan support that Obama and the democrats completely flubbed, or was every concession in the process only doomed to weaken the stimulative effects of the bill?
Appearing on CNBC the day after he abruptly withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg made a rather blunt admission about the partisan intransigence that the Obama administration is forced to deal with.
From the transcript:
Carl Quintanilla: Well, Senator, since you were nominated it's become quite clear that the margin that the president is going to rely on in the Senate has come down to really three Senators."Sen. Gregg: I think it's always been that margin.
The point Sen. Gregg seems to be making, is that, no matter what, Obama was never going to get any of the 38 Republican votes he was seeking.
This leads to an important question: if the Republicans had no intention on voting for the bill, no matter what it contained, what was the point in bringing them into the legislative process at all? What Gregg is saying is, and what Limbaugh has emphatically stated, is that the Republicans' only interest is that the Democratic agenda fails, regardless of its intention, or regardless to the interests of the American people.
For the sake of being charitable, allow me to posit that it would seem unfair to say that Republicans value partisan advantage over national interest. After all, would not partisan opposition to a party, whom you believe are not acting in the national interest, be in the national interest?
I would accept this theory, had I not considered their record of governance.
While enjoying a comfortable majority in Congress and the Supreme Court, and with control of the executive, Republicans should have balanced the budget, cut government spending, in particular, cut entitlement programs like social security and medicare, given states more latitude to adopt their own policies, increased individual freedom, repealed gun control legislation, and worked to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. In short, accomplish their agenda.
In fact, we see that Republicans have done none of these things. They do not seem to be interested in enacting their own agenda, let alone that of the opposition's.
Therefore, since they do not seem interested in advancing what they believe to advance the national interest, can we not conclude, then, that their entire philosophy is maintaining partisan advantage?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
I am loved.
I bet none of you plebeians, after you lose your job, get the President to come to your town to tell you that everything's gonna be all right.
Transcript
Transcript
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Assclown announcement.
Later today we'll find out the extent of how the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Geithner is a goddamn criminal.
Geithner is a goddamn criminal.
Boo.
I am so tired of this bullshit.
Fucking idiots. I'm sure there's a bigger story here--there's absolutely no context at all, anywhere I clicked inside of this story, but this shit is non-negotiable with me.
Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit
The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.
This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.
Fucking idiots. I'm sure there's a bigger story here--there's absolutely no context at all, anywhere I clicked inside of this story, but this shit is non-negotiable with me.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Stimulus vote today?
Presumably, we'll be saddled with an additional $900b debt, of which only a tiny fraction will be able to make up for the decrease in consumer spending, and a still smaller fraction of that going towards the infrastructure development the country will so definitely need to grow out of this.
If I were an advisor to Obama, I'd have him call a joint session of Congress to have two economic teams, conservative and liberal, Hayekian and Keynesian, battle it out. Each side would elect a leader, who would be able to give a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation, replete with graphs and pie charts and other visual aids, to promote their vision of what is the best interest of the United States based on their own doctrinal vision. A theoretical primer, if you will.
After the presentations, packets containing each team's proposals, based on real world figures, would be presented to the Senate to include, exclude, and modify into a real stimulus bill.
THAT is goddamn compromise.
I'm convinced that most of Congress has no fucking idea what's going on. The stimulus is purely political. This is the crux of the problem, thus, why we're spending so much money on things that will not fucking do anything, even in theory, to promote economic growth. They don't know how to do it, because they don't understand economics. They're just throwing money at the problem, to make the bill "big enough," and calling it a day. Political bullshit at its finest, and ultimately, its most countereffectual, which is the same thing.
If I were an advisor to Obama, I'd have him call a joint session of Congress to have two economic teams, conservative and liberal, Hayekian and Keynesian, battle it out. Each side would elect a leader, who would be able to give a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation, replete with graphs and pie charts and other visual aids, to promote their vision of what is the best interest of the United States based on their own doctrinal vision. A theoretical primer, if you will.
After the presentations, packets containing each team's proposals, based on real world figures, would be presented to the Senate to include, exclude, and modify into a real stimulus bill.
THAT is goddamn compromise.
I'm convinced that most of Congress has no fucking idea what's going on. The stimulus is purely political. This is the crux of the problem, thus, why we're spending so much money on things that will not fucking do anything, even in theory, to promote economic growth. They don't know how to do it, because they don't understand economics. They're just throwing money at the problem, to make the bill "big enough," and calling it a day. Political bullshit at its finest, and ultimately, its most countereffectual, which is the same thing.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Health Care Reform
Just read Krugman's column from Jan. 29, Health Care Now.
I can't argue with him about the economics of it. I'd love single payer yesterday.
He mentions why the entire column is shit in this paragraph:
First, if you tip the Republicans off to your hand now, before the stimulus is done, you make Harry Reid's job even more difficult than it is right now. And the man has a hard time meeting minimum expectations as it is.
Second, you need to give Obama time to catch his breath. How about we get an HHS secretary who can take some of the responsibility for selling this to Congress? Can we upgrade the White House computers to XP? In the meantime, let him get some easy bipartisan wins on stupid shit. Everybody has to get to know each other, like it or not. If you start out clubbing baby Republicans with the baseball bats too soon out the gate, they will hate you and obstruct everything for the next two years. I know, they already hate you. But they will hate you so much more. Shock and Awe will not work with these people. Obama will need some quick wins, learning how to work with these assholes on stuff they really don't care about but will go to the mattresses on. Gays in the military--stuff that helps America without spending a lot more money on government stuff would be nice.
Third, if the stimulus does nothing, and I have a feeling it will underachieve in a spectacular way, then you're left with two potential whammies. One, the market will crash right in the middle of the health care debate, and two, the spectre of having to raise taxes to pay for all of this shit exactly when the economy starts to improve--not when you wanted the stimulus to do it, but when it naturally recovers, if it recovers, years and years later, you would effectively kill the momentum of the recovery.
Fourth, I think you gain momentum for universal health care when the unemployment rate start creeping up and more and more people are taking the status of their employment a lot more seriously than they are right now. I think we're in for a bad first half of the year. This will do little to decrease public support for something like universal health care.
Fifth, the benefits of universal health care will be immediate, and will greatly improve millions of Americans' quality of life. What Krugman is advocating is a simultaneous left and right. I'm in favor of a one-two punch. I really want to land both squarely on the jaw of one of the most pressing problems our country faces, as powerfully as we possibly can. Can't do that if your feet aren't set.
Does universal health care help strengthen the economy? Absolutely, I think it does. Is it the right thing to do? Yessir. Do I want to stomp Republicans whenever I get a chance? Fucking A. Is this the most absolutely worst time to bring it up? Goddamn right it is.
I can't argue with him about the economics of it. I'd love single payer yesterday.
He mentions why the entire column is shit in this paragraph:
Finally — and this is, I suspect, the real reason for the administration’s health care silence — there’s the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis. But if history is any guide, this argument is precisely wrong.Maybe. It's still wrong to bring it up now. I'm not sure how you can make the argument that Obama is not doing enough with the stimulus and then turn around in the next column and say that he should immediately work to implement a hugely complex social spending program.
First, if you tip the Republicans off to your hand now, before the stimulus is done, you make Harry Reid's job even more difficult than it is right now. And the man has a hard time meeting minimum expectations as it is.
Second, you need to give Obama time to catch his breath. How about we get an HHS secretary who can take some of the responsibility for selling this to Congress? Can we upgrade the White House computers to XP? In the meantime, let him get some easy bipartisan wins on stupid shit. Everybody has to get to know each other, like it or not. If you start out clubbing baby Republicans with the baseball bats too soon out the gate, they will hate you and obstruct everything for the next two years. I know, they already hate you. But they will hate you so much more. Shock and Awe will not work with these people. Obama will need some quick wins, learning how to work with these assholes on stuff they really don't care about but will go to the mattresses on. Gays in the military--stuff that helps America without spending a lot more money on government stuff would be nice.
Third, if the stimulus does nothing, and I have a feeling it will underachieve in a spectacular way, then you're left with two potential whammies. One, the market will crash right in the middle of the health care debate, and two, the spectre of having to raise taxes to pay for all of this shit exactly when the economy starts to improve--not when you wanted the stimulus to do it, but when it naturally recovers, if it recovers, years and years later, you would effectively kill the momentum of the recovery.
Fourth, I think you gain momentum for universal health care when the unemployment rate start creeping up and more and more people are taking the status of their employment a lot more seriously than they are right now. I think we're in for a bad first half of the year. This will do little to decrease public support for something like universal health care.
Fifth, the benefits of universal health care will be immediate, and will greatly improve millions of Americans' quality of life. What Krugman is advocating is a simultaneous left and right. I'm in favor of a one-two punch. I really want to land both squarely on the jaw of one of the most pressing problems our country faces, as powerfully as we possibly can. Can't do that if your feet aren't set.
Does universal health care help strengthen the economy? Absolutely, I think it does. Is it the right thing to do? Yessir. Do I want to stomp Republicans whenever I get a chance? Fucking A. Is this the most absolutely worst time to bring it up? Goddamn right it is.
I almost posted this yesterday,
but I did not want to admit the defeat of the western economy. Presumably out of self interest.
We are that close, and it is that dire. And it appears that finally Obama is getting it.
I've told you, I tell you, and will continue to tell you that the enormity of the problem--and the enormity of the only logical solution--is almost incomprehensibly awesome.
There has been a vacuum of leadership that Obama, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to rightfully step into.
Congressional democratic leadership are mindless, soulless puppets of no discernible vision. They display the leadership instincts of sheep, who have been successfully played and shepherded by the inept Republican bumblers who have just had their asses handed to them in an electoral rout not seen in decades--consider the height of the Republican House advantage in the 1990s: 24 votes, which they achieved in 1994. The Democrats in the house currently have a 77 vote edge.
In the two years they have been in power, they have not made one decisive stand for the interests of the United States of America. Not one. Obama has wrongly allowed them the opportunity to show their meddle on an issue of such importance.
Give them a microphone and they will dribble platitudes of no consequence from their worthless mouths. They speak of generalities and the need for decorum and forbearance and restraint. Feeble in mind and adverse of the slightest risk, they cede initiative to shadows.
They do themselves, their party, the American people, and the Constitution a disservice.
This farce needs to end. I believe in the separation of powers of government. I believe in the ability to find bipartisan solutions to common problems. I believe in compromise. And I sure as fuck do not believe in the superiority of the theory of the unitary executive.
But Obama is going to have to kick them in the ass. Very, very hard. And make them do his bidding. I believe this not because the President should, but until we have a change in leadership, the President must.
There are no words to describe the current bill as anything other than a shameful, hopeless, tragic farce of deliberative politics. This is not American government at its finest hour, and we do not have the ability to wait for Congressional statesmanship to show up. The President must kill this bill right now, submit a new one mindful of introductory fucking macroeconomics, and inflict as much pain on Democrats as possible to pass. the. bill.
For those of us who have been following the stimulus progress, I think we realized today that it's over. Congress is unwilling to provide the economy what it needs to stop the free fall.
And there is nothing anybody is going to be able to do to stop it once its gets rolling, and oh brother, it hasn't even started yet. You will know it's started when the market rallies the second time after this piece of shit bill passes. The first will be the sucker euphoria, the second rally will be the vultures, the shorts, covering. And then I do not see a floor.
If you haven't already, immediately start putting away six months worth of living expenses into your savings. Assume high energy prices.
Dear reader, good luck. You will need it.
If you prefer to go out swinging, call, do not e-mail, your senators. http://www.senate.gov
We are that close, and it is that dire. And it appears that finally Obama is getting it.
I've told you, I tell you, and will continue to tell you that the enormity of the problem--and the enormity of the only logical solution--is almost incomprehensibly awesome.
There has been a vacuum of leadership that Obama, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to rightfully step into.
Congressional democratic leadership are mindless, soulless puppets of no discernible vision. They display the leadership instincts of sheep, who have been successfully played and shepherded by the inept Republican bumblers who have just had their asses handed to them in an electoral rout not seen in decades--consider the height of the Republican House advantage in the 1990s: 24 votes, which they achieved in 1994. The Democrats in the house currently have a 77 vote edge.
In the two years they have been in power, they have not made one decisive stand for the interests of the United States of America. Not one. Obama has wrongly allowed them the opportunity to show their meddle on an issue of such importance.
Give them a microphone and they will dribble platitudes of no consequence from their worthless mouths. They speak of generalities and the need for decorum and forbearance and restraint. Feeble in mind and adverse of the slightest risk, they cede initiative to shadows.
They do themselves, their party, the American people, and the Constitution a disservice.
This farce needs to end. I believe in the separation of powers of government. I believe in the ability to find bipartisan solutions to common problems. I believe in compromise. And I sure as fuck do not believe in the superiority of the theory of the unitary executive.
But Obama is going to have to kick them in the ass. Very, very hard. And make them do his bidding. I believe this not because the President should, but until we have a change in leadership, the President must.
There are no words to describe the current bill as anything other than a shameful, hopeless, tragic farce of deliberative politics. This is not American government at its finest hour, and we do not have the ability to wait for Congressional statesmanship to show up. The President must kill this bill right now, submit a new one mindful of introductory fucking macroeconomics, and inflict as much pain on Democrats as possible to pass. the. bill.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Daschle Out.
And Obama says, "Sorry."
I like Tom Daschle. If he hadn't been a punk, he would have been an honest broker who probably could have gotten a lot of the health care reform done, due to his overwhelming popularity in Congress. But he is a crook, so I'm sorry, too.
This is kind of why it's important to keep your nose clean, guys.
Anyway, without further ado,
I nominate Howard Dean for, eh, consideration for nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Even if they hate him in Congress, he can use every cabinet meeting to lobby for the continuance of the 50-state strategy.
I like Tom Daschle. If he hadn't been a punk, he would have been an honest broker who probably could have gotten a lot of the health care reform done, due to his overwhelming popularity in Congress. But he is a crook, so I'm sorry, too.
This is kind of why it's important to keep your nose clean, guys.
Anyway, without further ado,
I nominate Howard Dean for, eh, consideration for nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Even if they hate him in Congress, he can use every cabinet meeting to lobby for the continuance of the 50-state strategy.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Coin Toss.
He had a 50/50 chance.
Apparently, he lost. Obama is not like Bush.
And that's OK! It really is! I've seen a lot of liberal bloggers bristle "Oh no he dinnit" about this, and I can't help but laugh about that a little bit.
First, it's cute, protecting President 80% Approval Rating, elected in large part because he stated that he planned to be out of Iraq within 15 months of taking office.
You can calm down. The Pentagon is always going to say they can win. I have to say I'm a little surprised that people are shocked by this. I would be more shocked if Petraeus didn't do something like this. He was tasked to achieve victory in Iraq, and he wants to see it through. Do people not expect him to play hardball to protect his plan, and what he believes to be in the best interest of honor of his guys, even if he wrecks himself in the process?
This is not a Constitutional crisis, and I actually applaud Petraeus and Gates if they do everything they can, including attempts to manipulate public opinion, against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They are doing what they believe in their hearts is right. Fortunately for those who actually believe they are wrong, they have a boss they must answer to.
Again, Obama has an 80% approval rating. They can convince 100% of his supporters that the President of the United States is wrong, and he can still order the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq within two weeks if he so chooses. Obama is the Commander in Chief, and as such, can order the military to do whatever he wants--within Constitutional boundaries.
And the Commander in Chief has just ordered a man who led the American forces in Iraq for 20 months to plan for a withdrawal without achieving the success that was expected of his plan, success that Petraeus, no doubt, believes to be right around the corner. Or maybe he feels Iraq in its current state is too unstable for us to leave. Or maybe he's worried about the security of his forces during the withdrawal. But none of that really matters, nor does it really matter what he does outside of the official chain of command, so long as he follows orders to the best of his ability.
Kennedy's Pentagon wanted to throw down with the Russkies during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet we're not all dead. Lincoln's Democratic opponent in 1864 was Gen. George McClellan, former chief of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan lost. Gen. Douglas MacArthur disagreed with Truman's limited Korean engagement so much that he pulled of his own PR blitz within Congress, and when that failed, tried to provoke his own fight. If he had won, the phrase, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away," would never have been spoken. The funny thing about military guys is that they often have a myopic view about military activity--which is exactly what you want, even if it's maddening that they're not espousing your particular view.
Apparently, he lost. Obama is not like Bush.
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
And that's OK! It really is! I've seen a lot of liberal bloggers bristle "Oh no he dinnit" about this, and I can't help but laugh about that a little bit.
First, it's cute, protecting President 80% Approval Rating, elected in large part because he stated that he planned to be out of Iraq within 15 months of taking office.
You can calm down. The Pentagon is always going to say they can win. I have to say I'm a little surprised that people are shocked by this. I would be more shocked if Petraeus didn't do something like this. He was tasked to achieve victory in Iraq, and he wants to see it through. Do people not expect him to play hardball to protect his plan, and what he believes to be in the best interest of honor of his guys, even if he wrecks himself in the process?
This is not a Constitutional crisis, and I actually applaud Petraeus and Gates if they do everything they can, including attempts to manipulate public opinion, against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They are doing what they believe in their hearts is right. Fortunately for those who actually believe they are wrong, they have a boss they must answer to.
Again, Obama has an 80% approval rating. They can convince 100% of his supporters that the President of the United States is wrong, and he can still order the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq within two weeks if he so chooses. Obama is the Commander in Chief, and as such, can order the military to do whatever he wants--within Constitutional boundaries.
And the Commander in Chief has just ordered a man who led the American forces in Iraq for 20 months to plan for a withdrawal without achieving the success that was expected of his plan, success that Petraeus, no doubt, believes to be right around the corner. Or maybe he feels Iraq in its current state is too unstable for us to leave. Or maybe he's worried about the security of his forces during the withdrawal. But none of that really matters, nor does it really matter what he does outside of the official chain of command, so long as he follows orders to the best of his ability.
Kennedy's Pentagon wanted to throw down with the Russkies during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet we're not all dead. Lincoln's Democratic opponent in 1864 was Gen. George McClellan, former chief of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan lost. Gen. Douglas MacArthur disagreed with Truman's limited Korean engagement so much that he pulled of his own PR blitz within Congress, and when that failed, tried to provoke his own fight. If he had won, the phrase, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away," would never have been spoken. The funny thing about military guys is that they often have a myopic view about military activity--which is exactly what you want, even if it's maddening that they're not espousing your particular view.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Oh for Fuck's Sake.
HHS Secretary appointee Tom Daschle is a crooked, sumbitch tax cheat!
I think that maybe having our gonna-have-to-spend-a-whole-lot-more secretaries and other cabinet-level officials cheating on their taxes is pretty disappointing. Maybe that's just me.
There's two things that piss me off:
One, it's the stupidity of accepting a nomination in which you know your tax cheating will be exposed. These are not just failures of personal morality, these are issues of judgment, and I seriously doubt Daschle's.
Two, it's the gall to ask me to not call for his head once his stupidity is exposed. It isn't the tax cheating that gets me, I already assume anyone with any money does it. It's that people who engage in criminal behavior still have a shot at getting confirmed. WTF happened to ethics and statesmanship? How much douchebaggery creates an acceptable level of scandal for that person to resign? It's insulting to me.
Daschle must go not because he's a fucking criminal, I'm not that idealistic. He's gotta go because if health care reform, which is important to me, is a priority of this administration, the HHS secretary is going to have to be the one to sell it to the American people in front of Congress. I'd just assume not have it sold to the public by an idiotic douche bag.
I think that maybe having our gonna-have-to-spend-a-whole-lot-more secretaries and other cabinet-level officials cheating on their taxes is pretty disappointing. Maybe that's just me.
There's two things that piss me off:
One, it's the stupidity of accepting a nomination in which you know your tax cheating will be exposed. These are not just failures of personal morality, these are issues of judgment, and I seriously doubt Daschle's.
Two, it's the gall to ask me to not call for his head once his stupidity is exposed. It isn't the tax cheating that gets me, I already assume anyone with any money does it. It's that people who engage in criminal behavior still have a shot at getting confirmed. WTF happened to ethics and statesmanship? How much douchebaggery creates an acceptable level of scandal for that person to resign? It's insulting to me.
Daschle must go not because he's a fucking criminal, I'm not that idealistic. He's gotta go because if health care reform, which is important to me, is a priority of this administration, the HHS secretary is going to have to be the one to sell it to the American people in front of Congress. I'd just assume not have it sold to the public by an idiotic douche bag.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Get out of my head.
Krugman. Watkins. Stop it, or give me credit! First a Nobel laureate, now the goddamn blog of Harvard Business.
Unless Obama plans to budget for nothing but medicaid, unemployment, welfare, food stamps and free abortions, he can't tell a goddamn soul that he knows more than anyone else. That's why he needs Geithner, who knows how the game is played.
Given what [Obama] and his advisers know and believe, what should we be told and when should we be told it?
Let's suppose, for example, that the following is "the truth" about the US economy. What follows is pretty gloomy, but it's a simple extrapolation of the results of a compelling new study of the aftermath of major financial crises presented by respected economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff at a recent annual meeting of the American Economic Association. They made an equally bold and correct prediction at the same meeting last January that we were on the verge of a financial crisis. (The Economist is currently running an active discussion on the topic).
Unless Obama plans to budget for nothing but medicaid, unemployment, welfare, food stamps and free abortions, he can't tell a goddamn soul that he knows more than anyone else. That's why he needs Geithner, who knows how the game is played.
"I won."
Heh.
More of this, please.
Overton window, republicans are asshats, republicans are liars, republicans throw tantrums, Overton window, Overton window, Overton window.
(Edit--Imagine my chargin when I tried to link a previous blog post to this article, using the same argument Obama reportedly made during this conversation, that while people might not earn enough to pay income tax, they certainly pay sales tax, entitlement program taxes, property taxes--one way or another, etc., and realized I had deleted the draft because I couldn't bring it down to a reasonable length. Good on him, shame on me for not working harder to get that post ready in time. Krugman has a post on the disingeniousness of Republicans in regard to the stimulus as proposed, here. Worth a read.)
The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.
[...]Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”
The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.
More of this, please.
Overton window, republicans are asshats, republicans are liars, republicans throw tantrums, Overton window, Overton window, Overton window.
(Edit--Imagine my chargin when I tried to link a previous blog post to this article, using the same argument Obama reportedly made during this conversation, that while people might not earn enough to pay income tax, they certainly pay sales tax, entitlement program taxes, property taxes--one way or another, etc., and realized I had deleted the draft because I couldn't bring it down to a reasonable length. Good on him, shame on me for not working harder to get that post ready in time. Krugman has a post on the disingeniousness of Republicans in regard to the stimulus as proposed, here. Worth a read.)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Limbaugh.
So, President Obama met with GOP leadership last week in an attempt to get this new stimulus bill passed. In this meeting, it is reported he said,
Not one to take these things lightly, Rush responded:
Oh for fuck's sake. Nobody is blaming the markets for this mess, Mr. Limbaugh, you drug-addled piece of shit. Nice straw man. The blame rests on those in the government, Congress, previous administrations, etc, for opening the door to the kind of business behavior that is perfectly normal in a dysfunctional market.
Of course private institutions are going to maximize profits. They can do this by doing all sorts of things, the most egregious examples usually result in a feel-good movie about the little man fighting back, losing, and finding some token victory to cling to as the rain forest is cut down, chemicals continue to pollute, the neighborhood store closes down when a big box comes to town, or unsafe cars blow up their drivers, etc., etc.
Markets are doing what they do. There is nothing wrong with a company in a market trying to maximize profits. The market's function, in its entirety, is providing a way to buy and sell the products of capital and labor in the most efficient way possible. If they didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. To expect any more from it is both foolish and impossible.
This is the whole reason for government regulation. Left to its own devices, a market will eventually consume itself. With adroit regulation--rules of law governing market behavior, a market will not grow as rapidly, nor fall as low. Without it, you get market failure. Finding the right set of rules that continues to allow the market to operate to maximize profits in a sane, sustainable way that minimizes negative externalities is the government's job, as they are the only one who can impose rules on market behavior. Where the government fails to do its job, the market will inevitably fail in its wake.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,"Goddamn right you can't. Unnamed white house staff insisted that this was an effort to make a large point about bipartisanship. Which is probably right, but I'm happy if Obama manages to marginalize Limbaugh, who is an asshat. And not just because his racist remarks don't go over as well on national TV as they do on his radio show. I'm not making an argument that this is a personal thing with Obama, but I'm sure it has to feel pretty good to needle Limbaugh all he can to make his political case.
Not one to take these things lightly, Rush responded:
There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.
Oh for fuck's sake. Nobody is blaming the markets for this mess, Mr. Limbaugh, you drug-addled piece of shit. Nice straw man. The blame rests on those in the government, Congress, previous administrations, etc, for opening the door to the kind of business behavior that is perfectly normal in a dysfunctional market.
Of course private institutions are going to maximize profits. They can do this by doing all sorts of things, the most egregious examples usually result in a feel-good movie about the little man fighting back, losing, and finding some token victory to cling to as the rain forest is cut down, chemicals continue to pollute, the neighborhood store closes down when a big box comes to town, or unsafe cars blow up their drivers, etc., etc.
Markets are doing what they do. There is nothing wrong with a company in a market trying to maximize profits. The market's function, in its entirety, is providing a way to buy and sell the products of capital and labor in the most efficient way possible. If they didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. To expect any more from it is both foolish and impossible.
This is the whole reason for government regulation. Left to its own devices, a market will eventually consume itself. With adroit regulation--rules of law governing market behavior, a market will not grow as rapidly, nor fall as low. Without it, you get market failure. Finding the right set of rules that continues to allow the market to operate to maximize profits in a sane, sustainable way that minimizes negative externalities is the government's job, as they are the only one who can impose rules on market behavior. Where the government fails to do its job, the market will inevitably fail in its wake.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Finally President
Now all there is to do is wait for the next constitutional crisis, which will immediately ensue after the election of the first mute to the Presidency.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration.
I have to admit that I can no longer watch things like this live. I have to make sure everything turned out OK before I take a peek. I think I caught ABC showing a side-by-side comparison between the crowd in 2005 and today, and it was a pretty incredible difference. 400,000 people tend to show up to these things, and just in the mall alone, the crowd was estimated at 1.4 million people. Unfortunately, I was unable to tell from the 2005 image how many of the people on the mall stood with their backs to that miserable failure.
I'll put the video of the speech up later.
I'll put the video of the speech up later.
Quote of the Day
[I]n the unlikely story of America, there has never been anything false about hope.
President Barack Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
