TenuredVulture wrote:Also: TV thinks the Republicans have even bigger long term problems than the Democrats. No one else agrees.

to the contrary; this, marinated in a modest increment of rye whiskey, enables me to continue to push back implementing my hazy plans for a permanent move to Costa Rica

But it seems like you are blaming the victim. It's up to the victims of their policies to make them understand that they are hurting us all. Some of them voted for Obama, but many more of them voted for the people who are the problem.

I'll give you an example. Probably my favorite person that I met down there once called me a socialist for saying that I didn't like opening day being a big military thing. That doesn't even make sense. And she is a social studies teacher. I couldn't convince her that what I said didn't make me a socialist. How am I supposed to convince someone like that that she is hurting herself and voting against her own interests by voting with the GOP? It's tribalism. And again, I really love her...she's sweet and generous and helped make my time there tolerable. But when it comes to politics, she's kinda bat shit crazy.

In any case, my original point was that I think that big money is now too entrenched to turn the tide, at least as long as the Supremes believe that GE and I are somehow on equal footing. The GOP smartly appointed young ideologues to the bench. The game will be over, if it's not already, by the time they are gone. It will take more than a few visionaries to change things, imo, especially since any real visionaries will be attacked with the buzzwords of the day (socialist, communist, liberal, etc) until the shine is completely off of them in the eyes of the populace. If Reagan was a democrat in today's climate, he would be eaten alive.

Monkeyboy wrote:I'll give you an example. Probably my favorite person that I met down there once called me a socialist for saying that I didn't like opening day being a big military thing. That doesn't even make sense. And she is a social studies teacher. I couldn't convince her that what I said didn't make me a socialist. How am I supposed to convince someone like that that she is hurting herself and voting against her own interests by voting with the GOP? It's tribalism. And again, I really love her...she's sweet and generous and helped make my time there tolerable. But when it comes to politics, she's kinda bat shit crazy.

My question is why does she believe this? Who is talking to her? One possibility is that for quite some time, at least since the 60s, many of the left have been contemptuous of institutions that are really important to many Americans. One conversation won't do it. The right wing ideas that have now become mainstream were considered out there 60 years ago. The ideas percolated, developed, and as the New Deal coalition (a fragile one even in the best of times) came apart in the 70s it was poised to take advantage of the political opportunity that emerged in its wake. And now were here. And make no mistake, people have a sense that something has gone very wrong. But on the one hand, you've got people exploiting fear and anxiety by naming convenient villains and on the other hand, you've got articles like this in Salon. No one of course reads Salon. But where is the political leadership making this case to the American people?

Yeah, there is a vast right wing conspiracy. But let's not overestimate its power. Focus on the Family is falling far short of its fundraising goals.

Or move even further--I'm not completely convinced I'd go for this, but would anyone consider a tradeoff like repeal of Roe v. Wade in exchange for single payer health care?

One thing I do know--there's nothing permanent about our current political environment. And there's nothing inevitable about where things are going. We have choices. Constrained choices to be sure, but choices none the less.

TenuredVulture wrote:One possibility is that for quite some time, at least since the 60s, many of the left have been contemptuous of institutions that are really important to many Americans. One conversation won't do it. The right wing ideas that have now become mainstream were considered out there 60 years ago. The ideas percolated, developed, and as the New Deal coalition (a fragile one even in the best of times) came apart in the 70s it was poised to take advantage of the political opportunity that emerged in its wake. And now were here. And make no mistake, people have a sense that something has gone very wrong.

I don't disagree with any of this, and many times over the last ten years or so I've thought it would be really interesting to set up, say, a series of exchanges between MoveOn chapters (if MoveOn has chapters... that I don't know this probably is part of the problem) and church groups. I've had this idea of an open letter to the Tea Party that begins with the salutation "My fellow Americans..." But these things require both a willingness to speak and a willingness to listen... and very possibly a willingness to be called a Bolshevik and have rotten tomatoes (or worse) thrown at you the first five times the liberal elitist tries to begin the conversation.

TenuredVulture wrote:Or move even further--I'm not completely convinced I'd go for this, but would anyone consider a tradeoff like repeal of Roe v. Wade in exchange for single payer health care?

I wouldn't just consider it; I'd sign that deal before you finish the sentence. (Abortion law is exactly the sort of thing I believe should be decided locally; it's a perfect example of the sort of issue that's better resolved under my much-mocked federation idea.) But, one, it's probably easy for a bunch of guys to talk about such a thing--other than maybe Mrs. Vox, whom I'm pretty sure is against abortion rights, has any woman ever posted in a BSG politics thread?--and two, what makes you think the people who hate compromise anyway would be willing to accept that one?

Which kind of gets us back to the larger point. You're asserting that information we all have about "the Republican base," a/k/a the Tea Party, effectively a/k/a the Republican Party, is either inaccurate or not reflective of the true character of "traditional" communities. Maybe so, maybe not. But as MB and others point out, they keep voting as if this is the case. They keep pushing forward people like Virginia Foxx and Louie Gohmert and Steve King. I'm fairly certain these public officials would put people like the liberal political science professor (you) and the liberal public policy researcher/mid-level government official (me) into camps if they could. If you're saying that I'm failing to rise to the standard of agape that King and Gandhi would suggest is appropriate, I'll cop to that charge. I don't want to conquer them; I don't want to convince them; I want as little as to do with them as possible.

dajafi wrote:Which kind of gets us back to the larger point. You're asserting that information we all have about "the Republican base," a/k/a the Tea Party, effectively a/k/a the Republican Party, is either inaccurate or not reflective of the true character of "traditional" communities. Maybe so, maybe not. But as MB and others point out, they keep voting as if this is the case. They keep pushing forward people like Virginia Foxx and Louie Gohmert and Steve King. I'm fairly certain these public officials would put people like the liberal political science professor (you) and the liberal public policy researcher/mid-level government official (me) into camps if they could. If you're saying that I'm failing to rise to the standard of agape that King and Gandhi would suggest is appropriate, I'll cop to that charge. I don't want to conquer them; I don't want to convince them; I want as little as to do with them as possible.

This is why I go back to Howard Dean and 2006. There had long been a strategy question--should the Dems devote a lot of resources in a few swing districts, or try to expand the playing field, increasing the number of swing districts and be willing to lose some. It's clear that in 2006, the expand the playing field strategy paid off. There's a large percentage of people you're not going to convince. I bet there are very few CDs where those people constitute a majority. Bachmann has proven to be too extreme for the Republicans. Perry is having the success he's having not because he wants to put us in camps, but because he appears to have some answers on jobs. I wonder what's going to happen when people start learning he's also gutted Texas's public schools. Because the people I know down here in Arkansas like public schools. Perhaps they'd prefer a little prayer to go along with the pledge of allegiance, but they are mostly pleased that school funding has increased over the past decade.

What I'm saying is don't assume the image of the rural South is quite as hostile to people like you and I as you might imagine. Think Cliff Lee, not John Rocker.

I'm with you about Howard Dean vs. Rahm Emanuel, and feel like Dean got a raw deal in how he was subsequently treated by the Democratic Party. (Of course, what I liked about Dean in 2003 wasn't that he was a liberal loudmouth; it was that as governor, he'd perceived and articulated a linkage between responsible fiscal stewardship and progressive goals. I'm still not sure that if he'd run on that record rather than the "YEARGGHH!!" persona, he couldn't have given Bush a serious race in 2004.)

Meanwhile, I think this story suggests that Obama is trying to do what you suggest--and of course the Republicans are screaming "class warfare," which they see as appropriate only when it's the rich attacking the middle and working classes. If the rich aren't enjoying absurdly preferential tax treatment, we're all bloody-minded Jacobins... it'll be interesting to see how the "real Americans" react; I'm not optimistic.

dajafi wrote:I'm with you about Howard Dean vs. Rahm Emanuel, and feel like Dean got a raw deal in how he was subsequently treated by the Democratic Party. (Of course, what I liked about Dean in 2003 wasn't that he was a liberal loudmouth; it was that as governor, he'd perceived and articulated a linkage between responsible fiscal stewardship and progressive goals. I'm still not sure that if he'd run on that record rather than the "YEARGGHH!!" persona, he couldn't have given Bush a serious race in 2004.)

Meanwhile, I think this story suggests that Obama is trying to do what you suggest--and of course the Republicans are screaming "class warfare," which they see as appropriate only when it's the rich attacking the middle and working classes. If the rich aren't enjoying absurdly preferential tax treatment, we're all bloody-minded Jacobins... it'll be interesting to see how the "real Americans" react; I'm not optimistic.

Maybe this is a cop out on my part, but the rhetorical strategy Obama is using isn't likely to have an immediate payoff. Dems have to be willing to endure the charge of class warfare for any of this to work and even lose some battles. I'm talking about a guerrilla war strategy--hit, fall back, regroup, repeat. The long term trends really favor our side, as long as we take advantage of the opportunities we get. 2010 was but a temporary setback.

dajafi wrote:Meanwhile, I think this story suggests that Obama is trying to do what you suggest--and of course the Republicans are screaming "class warfare," which they see as appropriate only when it's the rich attacking the middle and working classes. If the rich aren't enjoying absurdly preferential tax treatment, we're all bloody-minded Jacobins... it'll be interesting to see how the "real Americans" react; I'm not optimistic.

There was a ton of quote machine action around the Buffett Bill which just makes me crazy. The summery is mostly this:

1. It unfairly singles out a group for different treatment.
2. It attacks the market investor
3. It targets the job creators

A rebuttal would be:

1. It corrects a problem what the wealthy pay less in percentage, and in some cases actual cash, then a "normal" middle class citizen. This is as simple as fair share.

2. True. If you have less free capital, you will likely put less in the market. The less advantage for tax free investment, the more likely the capital will potentially either be reinvested in other fund systems (off shore bank accounts that need to someday be repatriated or will simply be illegal) or the maximum will be contributed tax free/deferred with the remainder being paid to the government (consider it an investment in the future of our country). The question is will it really cripple the market as has projected? The answer is that everything effects the market, so yes, but will it be crippled ruining the fortunes of all those invested, I doubt it.

3. The "job creators" have not really done much with their tax breaks. If they are entrepreneurs, they will persist as they see the future pay out. If they play entrepreneur, then they go to ground and close down, which tells me that the company is either failing or the idea behind it is not sound. So I find this argument weak at best. Buffett bought a railroad with his funds because he believes in the business model, not because he is paying for the business out of his pocket.

Who wants to pay more taxes? No one. Who does not believe that we need to reduce/eliminate our national debt? Anyone?

As articulated of late, the "class warfare" charges are dangerous for repubs. Why?

Because america has no classes. The whining that a buffet tax is class warfare implies that we DO in fact have classes, AND that there's a reason to treat a class - the propertied class, for lack of a more apt label - differently, in terms of taxes, than mere wage earners.

And the first one to insist that we "need" to treat capital differently in order to reward its owners for taking on all that scary investment risk should consider themselves AT risk.

So, yeah, I feel like the Obama people read my post and have now responded as best they can under the circumstances. And it provokes reactions like this: It's tough to get by on $400, 000 a year

Republicans in pa want to split electoral votes so president obama gets less. Republicans in nebraska want to no longer split votes so president obama gets less.

Politics, everyone. Pa could go 55-45 and a majority could go to the R if some of the pa republicans have their way. This isn't a small state like NH or nebraska.

TenuredVulture wrote:So, yeah, I feel like the Obama people read my post and have now responded as best they can under the circumstances. And it provokes reactions like this: It's tough to get by on $400, 000 a year

He says his family lives on about $200k, the $400k in leftover profit is reinvested into opening new franchise locations and improving existing ones, and tax increases would eat into the money that he has to do those things.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So, yeah, I feel like the Obama people read my post and have now responded as best they can under the circumstances. And it provokes reactions like this: It's tough to get by on $400, 000 a year

He says his family lives on about $200k, the $400k in leftover profit is reinvested into opening new franchise locations and improving existing ones, and tax increases would eat into the money that he has to do those things.

He's sort of an idiot. He should have just talked about the new franchises and business reinvestment, knowing that editing would inevitably make him look bad if he talked about his everyday expenses. And I, as I assume many others, am viscerally repulsed anytime someone making over the median income complains about "feeding his family."

He also has a terrible toupee

So this Troy Davis thing is really gonna happen, huh

jerseyhoya wrote:He also has a terrible toupee

you're hurting the job creators

Too bad they are doing such a shit job of creating jobs even with all their tax breaks.

Monkeyboy wrote:Too bad they are doing such a #$&! job of creating jobs even with all their tax breaks.

Colbert had a great piece last night on this (especially @ 1:40):

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... fett-rule-

Wall St. Protests Continue, With Arrests at Morning March

Lots of coverage about this from the liberal media huh?

Are any sports journalists openly conservative the way Peter King, Rob Neyer, Jonah Keri, Peter Gammons, Rich Eisen etc. are liberal? Maybe Jay Glazer?