Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 591 To 600 Of 839 Comments
THEY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES
The scandal isn't what's illegal; it's what's legal. -- Michael Kinsley
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 19.02.2009 @ 11:31
BURRIS WHINES THAT 'MEDIA AND REPUBLICANS ARE ALMOST DESTROYING MY CHARACTER'
Oh, come on, Rick, are you trying to tell us you've never forgotten that someone solicited a bribe from you?
When you were asked under oath?
And when the questioner actually named the very name of the very person who in fact did attempt to solicit a bribe from you?
Okay . . . I got nothin'.
The guy's a liar, a crook, an out of control egomaniac and quite possibly nuts. Granted all that is par for the course, but he should still be ejected bodily.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.02.2009 @ 10:12
CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL
LN:
I don't see anything wrong with being white and straight. I'm both. But I've kind of noticed that an increasing number of voters aren't.
You can deny until you're blue in the face that the GOP is anti-gay, anti-Hispanic or anti-black, but it doesn't matter in political terms because each of those groups believes you are. So, you say "No, we don't practice dog-whistle racism!" and then you lose 95% of the black vote. "No, we don't demonize Hispanics," and then you actually manage to lose ground among a highly religious, socially conservative group like that. "No, we don't bash gays," and the only gay supporters you have are your closet queen Senators.
Let me put it this way: you may think the GOP's not anti-black and anti-Hispanic, but they sure think you are. So one way or the other, you have a bit of a problem.
Look, it's not my job to help you idiots win elections. As an American patriot I think we need a functioning second party. But if you insist on suicide, well, okay. Someone will eventually step in to take your place, just as the GOP replaced the Whigs. Rick is trying to be a voice for survival. But I've thought all along you guys would rather cut your own throats than grow up. This comment thread makes the point more eloquently than I could.
So, dude: everything is great. Black people love the GOP. Hispanics are going to come over to your side. Attacking gay marriage is totally going to work for you. The elderly, white and rural strategy is the pathway to future success! Keep on keepin' on. Boo yeah! Next year you may win back Indiana!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.02.2009 @ 23:25
L.N.
You know how many times Ronald Reagan tried to outlaw abortion? Zero. You know how many government departments he shut down? Zero. His Supreme Court appointees? Oconnor, Scalia and Kennedy. He was not the furthest Right. He was as far Right as he could be and still touch the center. Which is the sweet spot for you guys.
What would be the difference between a center right GOP and a center-left Democratic Party? Your side would still look primarily to free market solutions with government as a competent handmaiden. The Democrats would reverse that. A smart GOP would push power back to the States. The Democrats would continue to centralize power in Washington.
You don't think the GOP is guilty of attacking gays, blacks, Hispanics? Then explain why your party is as white and straight as a Utah country club? Obviously gays, blacks and Hispanics don't feel comfortable with you guys. Do they? Your party is rural, white and old. If you think that's a winning coalition going forward then you must be doing the new new math.
As long as the GOP is the party of gay-bashing, dog whistle racism, immigrant-baiting and abortion fanaticism, that's all you'll be. You slam the door on people in the center who might vote with you on economic issues and defense but can't stomach the Religious Right's nastiness.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.02.2009 @ 19:26
I think you're all missing the fact that it's a fluid game, not a static one. Reagan managed to move the entire dialog toward his position, and he didn't do it with extremism. He found the conservative edge of the center and planted his flag there. You guys are planting your flag on the conservative end of the Right and wondering why you're not seeing Reagan reincarnated.
Plant your flag on the right coast of the center, on Main Street, on making government an effective tool to aid economic growth. You'll move the center your way and isolate the Left. If you isolate them they distill into purified essence of Left, much as the GOP has now done on the Right.
You have to firmly walk away from gay-bashing, immigrant-baiting and dog whistle racism and fanaticism on abortion. Even then it will be a while before you see power again, but you need to play the long game.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.02.2009 @ 16:38
NEIWART AND THE LEFT DON'T GET IT
If we're going to use the law to balance out talk radio, who's going to balance out the more liberal web? The top liberal blogs and sites are to their conservative counterparts as Limbaugh is to Sam Seder.
It's probably as much a question of available audience demo as anything else. Who's listening to talk radio at noon? Not the young, not the actively employed, not the urban, not the up-market. In my car I have a choice of AM, FM, Sirius/XM, iPod (music, podcasts, talking books) and CD. I don't even stumble across Limbaugh anymore. Limbaugh is for farmers, truck drivers, retired people and poor folks.
Besides, as a Democrat I'm fine with the idea that the Real Chairman of the GOP is a windbag wheezing away in an archaic medium. No to the fairness doctrine!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.02.2009 @ 19:21
HATE TO RUIN YOUR WEEKEND, BUT...
Rick:
In #23 you say:That’s a lie. You know its a lie which makes you a bald faced liar. You refuse to accept the fact – a fact that hundreds of economists have made clear – that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this bill
In #1 I say:
Are we going to manage to piss away a goodly portion of those funds? Yes. And gravity is real and the sun rises in the east and car dealers lie.Which would make me not a "bald-faced liar" but a realist.
You say:
Using an economic crisis for pork, for passing unrelated spending, for rewarding loyal constituencies may be the most cynical move any president has made in my lifetime.This is hysterical and ahistorical drivel, and you know it. Your list was composed almost entirely of things which would certainly create or support jobs. 50 million for watershed rehab for example. Is that work done by waving a magic wand, or is it done by guys with shovels? Guys who get paid to wield those shovels.
3.7 billion for green renovations on military bases. Is that done by magic or by guys digging up barrels of sludge and disposing of same?
Is some of the spending bullshit? As I pointed out in comment #1: duh. Is some of it stuff that would have been spent anyway that we're pretending is new stimulus? Yes. Is the bill imperfect? Of course it is. Jesus, this is our government we're talking about, it hasn't yet achieved the kind of perfect free-market efficiency we might see in a CitiBank or a Lehman Brothers or a GM.
Suddenly you want to apply the "perfection" standard to legislation? Have you been applying this consistently over the years? Your list amounts to 1.5%. The full list, according to my rough math, is about 10%. Even assuming either list makes any sense (and neither does) you think a 10% fudge factor is cause for this much outrage? The greatest betrayal of trust in your lifetime? A lifetime that includes Vietnam, Watergate, Desert One, Iran/Contra, Abu Ghraib among so many, many others?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.02.2009 @ 10:30
Jaguar:
Shhh. You're making sense. They want a stimulus that doesn't cost any money. And then they want cheesecake that doesn't make them fat and whiskey that doesn't make them drunk. Reality not welcome.
That's a lie. You know its a lie which makes you a bald faced liar. You refuse to accept the fact - a fact that hundreds of economists have made clear - that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this bill - spending that will not energize the economy and belongs in separate legislation but the cowardly Democrats won't present it that way because they know they can't get $13 billion for special ed or another billion for NASA, or the tens of billions that will be added for new programs that deserve a separate vote.
It is dishonest to present this bill the way Obama has. You are party to a fraud - actually, gleefully supporting a fraud upon the taxpayer. Using an economic crisis for pork, for passing unrelated spending, for rewarding loyal constituencies may be the most cynical move any president has made in my lifetime. And you saying that most of us here don't want to spend money is an outrageous lie because you know it is not true.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.02.2009 @ 09:35
Chris:
When will your points not include reference to George Bush.
Last I checked Republicans were still blaming Bill Clinton for everything. So how about this rule: when we stop hearing Republicans blame Clinton -- who has been out of office for 8 years -- we'll start a one year countdown clock. At the end of that time we'll stop blaming Mr. Bush. But with Mr. Bush gone less than a month I think it might be a bit early to pretend that he never existed.
And, I'm sorry, but did you see "midnight basketball" on Rick's list? I didn't. Which means you are yourself reaching back to 1994 -- 14 years. You go back 14 years and get pissy when I go back a month?
By my rough math the total of Rick's list comes to roughly 1.5% of the total stimulus package. 1.5% and the sky is falling.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.02.2009 @ 18:49
Let's add up the cost of all these terrifying new government programs and see whether they equal Mr. Bush's prescription drug program. Or Mr. Bush's Let's Turn Iraq Into Vermont initiative. Not even close. Put it all together and it doesn't equal the amount we'll spend on the bottle caps of all those meds, or the amount that will be stolen by Iraqi politicians and end up in Switzerland and the Caymans.
Rick, the idea of a stimulus is to spend money. We're giving some to taxpayers to spend, and we're giving some to government to spend, most of which will in turn be spent in private industry. Are we going to manage to piss away a goodly portion of those funds? Yes. And gravity is real and the sun rises in the east and car dealers lie.
Did you imagine that we'd contrive a way to spend 800 billion dollars and zero dollars would be wasted? I read your list and thought, "Wow, that's all he's got?"
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.02.2009 @ 12:10
