Having read Jon Chait over the years I question his objectivity in announcing the premature death of conservatism; the Republican Party perhaps, but then there is little conservative about the Grand Old Party these days. "Out of gas" "out of ideas" and "over the cliff" is an equally apt description for the democrat party and the modern progressive liberal ideas but alas, objective journalists like Chait never seem to find the time, ink, or inclination to do that analysis.
Using the language and logic of those who wish you ill is never a smart place to start an argument but that is what Mr. Moran does asserting that "the GOP cannot meet the basic definition of a political party; a repository for ideas and principles that advance a particular political philosophy." This has been, in various configurations, one of the perpetual talking points of the DNC. I guess beyond them telling me ad nauseum, I am missing the fresh "progressiveness" of the DNC offering their same solution set over and over for the last 70 years. I guess I am missing the obviousness of those fresh progressive solutions that require their candidated to pretend to be the exact opposite of a modern progressive liberal to get elected.
Mr. Moran continues, "Cutting taxes when we’re staring at a deficit of $1.5 trillion a year is not only irrelevant, it is reckless, suicidal, irresponsible policy. Claiming that government spending would be cut an equal amount as any tax breaks is ludicrous, not to mention a horrible idea in the midst of a deep recession."
Is cutting taxes more or less "reckless, suicidal, and irresponsible" then adding approximately three trillion dollars to the debt ... in the midst of a deep recession... in the first year in office? Is the current generation, the one that has allowed this situation to fester, the correct repository for the consequences of its own excess, or is it the responsibility of our kids and grand kids and great grand kids?
Moran continues, "Any tax cuts enacted would add to the deficit substantially;” Which is simply an incorrect statement. In our lifetime, from JKF to RWR, it is an observable fact that tax cuts have increased the revenue flowing to the government. If that reality was not recorded in the bottom-line it is for one reason alone; a rapacious federal Congress engorges itself spending other people’s money faster than the increasing revenue stream.
Is it at all surprising that spending cuts have not been any part of the democrat (or Republican) conversation? Is it at all surprising that TARP and Stimulus monies have flowed predominantly to political constituencies. Is it at all surprising that none of the traditional democrat interest groups are injured by/in/ or through any of these fresh progressive ideas? Frugality does not buy liberal votes and conversely, profligacy does not purchase conservative votes. But at the end of the day which is the more sustainable model and better for the country?
I am not here to defend the clown show that is the current Republican Party. I have another "personalized survey" from Michael Steele sitting on my counter that I will again send back without a check enclosed and defaced with black magic marker pleading, "STAND FOR SOMETHING!"
I do wish those from the right who are so critical would at least offer up more than re-worded DNC, lose~lose arguments. I wish those from the right who are so critical would at least apply the same due diligence, the same stink eye, the same critical analysis, to the other side as they do to their own. But alas, objective journalists like Chait (Moran?) never seem to find the time, ink, or inclination to do that.
So as Mr. Moran says, So much for “fiscal responsibility,” and so much for objective journalistic responsibilities.Comment Posted By Tyranno On 23.12.2009 @ 05:59
Since I too, do not possess "an ensemble of scientific credibility" please accept my observations in the spirit they are given.
"I know the fact that science has determined the climate change is real."
HHhhhmmmm. . . of course climate change is real. Distinct climate changes of a degree or two are recordable every hour if not every minute. Thus their revised statement/accusations, from global warming to climate change, are not incorrect. But, one just has to buy into such a bizarre, constructed, unprovable, narrative about the world to believe what they believe. If non-believers are the equivalent of (holocaust) "deniers" then believers are the equivalent of extremist eco-terrorists who, like their other religious brethren, also believe they will get your 27 eco-virgins payoff in the next life for their righteous but often criminal acts now.
All I demand is that those who do not believe are given the same hearing as all of the Elmer "algore" Gantry's out there who are pushing and profiting from this sophistry. Oh and, are algore and Dr. Rajendra Pachauri not the jesse jackson and al sharpton of environmentalism?Comment Posted By Tyranno On 20.12.2009 @ 23:21
RM: “he may have to think hard about re-calibrating his priorities and perhaps even re-inventing his presidency.”
There is no “may” to it. He either will recalibrate or face a Carter-style ass thumping. From what I have seen, this truly is a man of the Left and he will go down with what remains of his ship in 2012. His ideological fanaticism, coupled with complete Administrative inexperience, makes it unlikely Obama can pull a Clinton and “recalibrate” or “triangulate” or whatever the term is these days.
the obama administration doesn't feel the need to change course because, it has bribed and stashed away enough TARP and Stimulus billions around the country, it has been organizing 3-4 times a month with SEIU Andrew Stern's brownshirts since taking office, and ACORN starts getting taxpayer dollars again tomorrow. I see all of the ingredients for your basic Chicago-style successful "Re-election" campaign.
The idea of a european-style socialism scares me a whole lot less than the thuggish, criminal, politics I see being perpetrated in its name.Comment Posted By Tyranno On 19.12.2009 @ 05:53
I read Zinn's book and came away with the impression that I just learned American history at the office water cooler. Zinn's book was like listening to all the bitchers and whiners in the office who have all the answers if only someone would listen to them. The "ONE" that every office has, who was/were victims before being a victim was cool. It struck me as a collection of malcontents who never understood that to wrest benefits from Godless capitalists requires said capitalists are first available and profitable and thus, able to be plundered.
I try to imagine that better place that Zinn must believe is available, is out there, somewhere. What and where is the better, more fair, model that the U.S. should be emulating? The cruel fact for a malcontent like Zinn is that if he was practicing his special brand of enlightened grievance mongering anywhere else except the west, he and his ilk would be anonymous and quite possibly rotting in some dank, damp, dark, prison out of earshot of the masses. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that is what makes the U.S.A. stronger and better than those "other countries;" but I still like the imagery.Comment Posted By Tyranno On 13.12.2009 @ 22:20
"I have seen not a single fact put forward here by Rick, or by any of the rightwing comment-writers, to support their positions: none. Nada. Zip.
We get it: you hate Obama. Beyond that hatred you’ve got nothing. Vapor."
WOW! You just have to be willing to overlook so much to believe what Mike Reynolds and Surabaya Stew believe. They wish/want/need to believe that dislike of the president is based solely on emotional "hatred." Are these observations so profound they obviate the need for explanation? I'll bet a euro that you all are just channeling your own emotions from the last presidency, eh?
I mean, Jesus Mike, at least aim for a little objectivity in your perspective: Don't you really mean, "Making the best of the mess... he inherited?" That disclaimer just seems to be chiseled onto the teleprompter.
Obama didn't just screw his own base over Afghanistan. With his poll numbers cratering down into the 40s he felt he had to at least give the appearance of doing something for the national interests. How could he "walk away" when he had already hitched his cart to "The Good War" during the campaign; had already fired one General and hired "his" man to lead that "good war" (Notice we talk of leading, not winning); as he announced his "new" strategy in Afghanistan last March. Gen McChrystal wanted 80k, was told to shut up - publicly asked for 40K - and received 30K. And now you come along attempting to make a virtue out of political necessity. Seems to me now is the first time some of those Vietnam analogies - of Ivy league whizz kids fighting the war from the WH basement - might start gaining credibility.
I sometimes wonder if the tone of the obama criticism might not regulate itself if anyone in the mainstream media or on the sychophantic left ever challenged this neophyte President with the level of scrutiny and inquiry they seem to save for Republican Presidents. I know I am getting tired of hearing other WH officials, Gibbs, and MSM pundits after the fact
"clarify" what this brilliant man really meant.
"Cheney and his supporters should be hooted at and driven from the public discourse in shame." Hhhmmm... that is exactly how I feel when I have to listen to obama read another vacuous, platitudinous, campaign speech from the teleprompter a year into his bumbling Presidency. . . and then listen to WH officials, Gibbs, and MSM pundits wax about how historic it all is.
So tell me please, are we not witnessing the "soft bigotry of low expectations or is this just the best the modern progressive liberal democrat party has to offer?
PS: Please tell me what other actions the obama administration has taken to further U.S. national interests as a "first among equals" in the world?Comment Posted By Tyranno On 13.12.2009 @ 10:11
"The Cheneyite neocons have used the good name and hard earned trust and faith in America that previous generations built, to turn America into just another global Empire consumed with its own power and expansion."
Please enlighten me on the other "global empires" that "conquered" a country and then dumped half a trillion dollars into it ~ as opposed to the old fashioned way of conquering, decimating the populace, and then shipping the wealth and natural resources back to the mother country?Comment Posted By Tyranno On 13.12.2009 @ 09:09
Pages (1) :