dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I swear to god no one knows what a neocon is anymore. I thought neocons were people like Bill Kristol who weren't conservative first and foremost due to their hostility to the welfare state (or strangling gov't in the bathtub or whatever), but rather due to their desire to blow up foreign countries and remake them in our own image.

Yeah, this is how I generally try to use the term: people who see war as the answer to every foreign policy problem. Mostly they don't talk about domestic issues, express strong views about the size of government, etc--maybe because, as Paul likes to remind us, they started out a generation or two back as Trotskyite leftists and never really repudiated the domestic side of that worldview.

What makes Kristol at least a little different is that unlike, say, James Woolsey, he's a Republican partisan hack at least as much as he is an ideological neocon. So he'll champion someone like Sarah Palin purely for political reasons rather than because of some demonstrable ideological simpatico.

Obama probably has more to worry about from the pure partisan hacks--especially those like Norquist who are essentially nihilists--than the ideologically committed neocons, who will grouse and whine and hold events at AEI where they talk about what a big wimp the president is.

The two have some other similarities, too. They both believe in an elite class who should rule over the stupid rest of us, they both believe in telling "noble lies" because the average people can't handle the truth, and they both believe in using social institituions like religion to control the people. But like I said, I know I'm misusing the word in the real sense, but the usage is becoming commonplace and I try to use it to keep people from thinking I'm talking about all republicans. I'll try to use it in the traditional sense from now on.

And I do know Lincoln was killed before the reconstruction. What I meant by the other statement was that the southerners believed in government as a concept. They didn't believe in the northern government, but they believd in government. I'm not sure that's the case with many in the hard right that happen to be in control right now. In any case, Obama has been citing Lincoln as his reason for trying to mend fences with everyone, so he obviously sees some parallels (probably more than I do because I don't think it's going to work for the reasons I've already stated).

But I also admit that my command of that historical period isn't as good as some other periods, so I'll try to read up on it when I get the chance. Would anyone like to recommend a source?

Monkeyboy wrote: Stop pounding bad beer and start paying attention to what's going on

Like you ignored my namecalling(rightfully so) I am going to ignore everything else you said.

This comment hurts. I like the beer I drink.

I wasn't trying to make you the board bitch. You were acting like one and seemingly unprovoked.

You can think I have my head in the sand if that makes you feel better. Trust me though, I am more willing to give the opposite party a chance than you ever will be able to.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think everyone should simply stop using the word neo-con. It used to mean something. It no longer does.

seriously just like "emo" and "indie" is this the music thread?

Camp Holdout wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think everyone should simply stop using the word neo-con. It used to mean something. It no longer does.

seriously just like "emo" and "indie" is this the music thread?

I don't know what emo is. I think though that indie and neocon are pretty useless these days, and do very little to promote understanding of music and politics, respectively.

In terms of politics, I would go considerably further than simply not using the term neocon, but even terms like liberal and conservative.

WilliamC wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: Stop pounding bad beer and start paying attention to what's going on

Like you ignored my namecalling(rightfully so) I am going to ignore everything else you said.

This comment hurts. I like the beer I drink.

I wasn't trying to make you the board bitch. You were acting like one and seemingly unprovoked.

You can think I have my head in the sand if that makes you feel better. Trust me though, I am more willing to give the opposite party a chance than you ever will be able to.

You don't know what you're talking about. I've actually voted for almost as many reps in my life as dems, but go ahead and believe what you want. I guess part of what you ignored was the part where I cited my voting record. I guess ignoring me proves how open you are.

And how is expressing an opinion acting like a bitch? Answer: It's not, but it does give you a lame reason for acting like a dick.

I have the last 8 years as evidence of how this particular group of republicans will act.

Henry Waxman won the first vote to become chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee next year, beating John Dingell.

This is a pretty big deal in terms of how easily the House Dems might be able to move climate change legislation, presuming their full caucus goes along with the steering committee vote. I wonder how involved with it Pelosi was; at the least she's probably thrilled with the outcome.

Monkeyboy wrote:Rudy is more like it.

and you've become a hack, btw

Seriously, dajafi calling me a hack is one thing, this is comical coming from you (doubly comical coming after your attempt to "ignore the rest of the namecalling").

Loathsome is as loathsome does, I suppose.

VoxOrion wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Rudy is more like it.

and you've become a hack, btw

Seriously, dajafi calling me a hack is one thing, this is comical coming from you (doubly comical coming after your attempt to "ignore the rest of the namecalling").

Loathsome is as loathsome does, I suppose.

I don't have any problem saying it to you because you have repeatedly said similar things to me. William, otoh, has always been decent, so I glossed over it. I don't think i saw dajafi calling you a hack, so it's funny we came to the same conclusion.

It's your board, chief. You are responsible for the tone. If you don't like it, change it..... you might want to start with yourself.

MANDANCE

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9fbIFMAIrQ[/youtube]

Momma always said, life is like an internet dispute...

VoxOrion wrote:Loathsome is as loathsome does.

Gallup numbers on auto bailout 47 favor, 49 against. When probed, 18 percent of those against say they would favor a bailout if they were certain to fail without it.

What I take from this single poll is that most Americans don't want to see GM, Ford, and Chrysler fail, but they aren't wild about a government bailout either.

http://www.pollingreport.com/business.htm

Other polls on the economy here as well.

I do think a deal will be done that will include serious union concessions.

They finally called Missouri, for McCain. So the Show-Me state didn't vote for the winner, for the first time since 1956.

TenuredVulture wrote:Gallup numbers on auto bailout 47 favor, 49 against. When probed, 18 percent of those against say they would favor a bailout if they were certain to fail without it.

What I take from this single poll is that most Americans don't want to see GM, Ford, and Chrysler fail, but they aren't wild about a government bailout either.

http://www.pollingreport.com/business.htm

Other polls on the economy here as well.

I do think a deal will be done that will include serious union concessions.

I think you are correct. For any economic recovery to be viable in the short-term, the car companies need to receive aid. Any deal has to include substantial concessions as well as mandates regarding fuel-efficiency / alternative fueled vehicles. Additionally, I think executive management at all of the companies either needs to be gone or needs to "report" to a government-level entity run by somebody non-political and with CEO/Private Equity-type experience. Not them, but I'm thinking of guys like Buffett or Lynch. If management stays, pay for performance should be the rule of the day; these idiots don't make a dime until the bagholders do.

One last thought, if GM is burning $5 BILLION per month, I don't see how $25B is going to be enough for all of them.

Very interesting take from Ross Douthat on Obama's possible direction in foreign policy, and how it might work spectacularly for him politically. Boiled down, he suspects Obama will prove more of a hawk than (even) Bill Clinton was, but won't pay a political price from his base so long as he gets us out of Iraq and actually clears the low bar of improvement on "detainee policy"--which most of us non-righties might just call "torture"--wiretapping, and the other hot-button issues of the Bush years. Having neutralized some opposition on the right, he can then focus on "the big-ticket goals that will guarantee his place in the liberal pantheon - universal health care, a New Deal for energy policy, a succession of young liberal judges who will tilt the Supreme Court leftward for a generation, etc."

I'd very happily take that deal.

It wasn't until my second read of this post that I realized he linked to the article I'd been thinking about as I read it the first time: a New Republic piece from the summer offering an educated guess that Obama's foreign policy would hew closer to Reagan than Carter.

Corzine leads Christie in the poll, 42% to 36%, although only 37% of voters think Corzine deserves to be reelected and his approval rating remains net negative. Christie remains a relative unknown, with only 30% of respondents knowing enough about him to form an opinion.

We gon have a real election in Jersey next year, I think.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Corzine leads Christie in the poll, 42% to 36%, although only 37% of voters think Corzine deserves to be reelected and his approval rating remains net negative. Christie remains a relative unknown, with only 30% of respondents knowing enough about him to form an opinion.

We gon have a real election in Jersey next year, I think.

Could be. But when was the last time NJ voters really liked, as in gave strong approval ratings to, any of their statewide electeds as incumbent candidates?

Not that Corzine is safe, but it seems like that state always and consciously chooses whomever they hate slightly less.

That's a legitimate point, except most of my confidence that it will be a real race stems from the fact that I think Christie is the best candidate we've had to run statewide since...Kean in 1985?

jerseyhoya wrote:That's a legitimate point, except most of my confidence that it will be a real race stems from the fact that I think Christie is the best candidate we've had to run statewide since...Kean in 1985?

I recognize the name but can't remember much about Christie. Was he a US Attorney or something?

Kean was a powerhouse when I was a kid. Seemed like a really good public servant and not a dick--the kind of Republican I wish we had more of, a guy I could even vote for.

Yeah, he's been US Attorney for the last seven years. He was a freeholder in Morris County in the 1990s I think.

He has indicted a ton of politicians over his term, and has a pretty solid conviction record. He's brought down a bunch of Republicans as well as Democrats.

dajafi wrote:Tom Daschle will be Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I feel privileged to be first to remark about this news, and my remark is:

meh

but enough about Daschle.

Is Obama's loading up on Clintonites some just s ploy enabling him to step gracefully away from naming an actual Clinton to anything, or is he trying to disappoint a whole lot of people right away, just to get them used to it?