The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

I'm loving the GOP response to Obama's call to eliminate all nuclear weapons: "what an ignorant fool".

 

Yes, desiring a world without massively destructive weapons capable of sending us to the stone age is soooooo ignorant and stupid.

It is ignorant if there's no way to verify. The old saying goes... trust, but verify.

 

Frankly, do you trust the Russians and Chinese to totally disarm? I don't.

[lostfan]

It is ignorant if there's no way to verify. The old saying goes... trust, but verify.

 

Frankly, do you trust the Russians and Chinese to totally disarm? I don't.

Yeah, but naturally, they don't really trust us either.

 

In the existing START treaty we have with the Russians, somewhere in there is language about mutual inspections and "national technical means" which is basically a pretty euphemism saying we both know we will be spying on one another to make sure we stay in compliance. Nobody in their right mind would blindly hand over a trump card like that, though.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, but naturally, they don't really trust us either.

 

In the existing START treaty we have with the Russians, somewhere in there is language about mutual inspections and "national technical means" which is basically a pretty euphemism saying we both know we will be spying on one another to make sure we stay in compliance. Nobody in their right mind would blindly hand over a trump card like that, though.

I agree. I mean, it sounds wonderful - a world with no nukes. In reality, it's a farce... and just the issue I have with Mr. Obama (and no, I'm not trying to carpet bomb - it's yet another illustration of flowery crap that sounds wonderful like he will save the world, when in reality it's a non issue.)

[lostfan]

It's really not as flowery and farfetched as it sounds, though, and the theory does have some merit. The catch, and a big one, is getting everyone to agree to take that jump. If you can do that and then actually manage to develop measures to control new proliferation, then it's possible. But until then, it's "you first."

[kapkomet]

It's really not as flowery and farfetched as it sounds, though, and the theory does have some merit. The catch, and a big one, is getting everyone to agree to take that jump. If you can do that and then actually manage to develop measures to control new proliferation, then it's possible. But until then, it's "you first."

And again, I would never, ever trust anyone (including us) to make the first move in reality, although everyone would probably say they would.

[bmags]

So then never strive for it, instead, encourage everyone to build UP their nuclear arms!

[lostfan]

And again, I would never, ever trust anyone (including us) to make the first move in reality, although everyone would probably say they would.

It'd need a lot of transparency like the START treaty has right now. If they (or us) is bulls***ting, then either the inspectors will find out, or the reconnaissance photos, or whatever. I'm not sure what would happen if someone violates it, though.

[kapkomet]

So then never strive for it, instead, encourage everyone to build UP their nuclear arms!

ok dude, CLEARLY that was what I was saying.

[bmags]

It's a pretty stupid strategy to complain about. We can start reducing our nuclear arsenal and still be at it for decades.

[kapkomet]

It's a pretty stupid strategy to complain about. We can start reducing our nuclear arsenal and still be at it for decades.

I agree, but neither side will in reality ever do this (reductions, sure, it only takes 5 or so to destroy the world, so eliminate, hell no), so my contention that this is nothing more then blather to make himself look good stands.

 

[bmags]

Well you have no idea if you are correct. If the russians do start to reduce their arsenal, it would make me happy because they seem to have an extremely corrupt country that finds itself losing things that would make certain smaller nations much more powerful.

[StrangeSox]

My opinion is that the nuclear cat is out of the bag (or out of Schrodinger's sadistic box, if you prefer) and there's no going back. I support a reduction in arms but not a complete disarmament.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bachmann: Obama Wants "Re-Education Camps For Young People"

Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has levied the most bizarre and outlandish critiques against President Obama since before he came into office, did not disappoint this weekend.

 

Appearing on Minnesota radio station KTLK-AM, (h/t Minnesota Independent) the Republican congresswoman expressed her concern that White House was trying to put in place "re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward." Furthering the Obama-as-autocrat theme, Bachmann said the youngsters would "then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."

 

The launching point of Bachmann's remarks was the widely popular and bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which would expand national community service programs from 75,000 positions to 250,000.

 

"It's under the guise of -- quote -- volunteerism. But it's not volunteers at all. It's paying people to do work on behalf of government," said the Minnesota Republican. "I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."

 

The Obama White House did not immediately return request for reaction. The Kennedy Serve America Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 275 to 149 and the Senate, by a vote of 79 to 19.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Infighting in the GOP House:

You know there’s serious disarray afoot among a party’s Congressional leaders when the principals and their staffs start leaking damaging info about each other, and that now seems to be happening among House GOP leaders.

 

Check out this nugget from Ben Pershing’s piece on increasing tensions among House Republicans. It appears that someone is trying to pin the blame for the House GOP’s politically-disastrous, numbers-free budget on John Boehner:

Privately, Cantor and the lawma

k

er ta

s

k

ed with writing the GOP budget, Rep. Paul D. Ryan, had urged the party to hold off going public until it could produce a fini

s

hed product. Both men wanted a more detailed propo

s

al with dollar figure

s

that would ma

k

e it a more defen

s

ible document. Boehner and Hou

s

e Republican Conference Chairman Mi

k

e Pence di

s

agreed, hoping to counter a

s

quic

k

ly a

s

po

s

s

ible Democrat

s

’

charge that Republican

s

are

“

the Party of No.

”

The re

s

ult wa

s

a botched rollout and bad pre

s

s

.

And someone wants to shift the blame for the botched budget rollout away from Eric Cantor.

 

Why the leak now? Dems, of course, are elevating Cantor as the face of the obstructionist opposition in a way they aren’t doing with Boehner — recall the full-scale Dem on Cantor’s worry about pols “overreacting” to the crisis.

 

Cantor’s staff seems generally more attuned than some other House GOP staffers to the potential effectiveness of the Dem attacks on the GOP as the “party of No.” Indeed, Cantor seems wary of being wholly lumped in with the rest of the leadership, and seems to want to preserve a bit of independence, given his obvious ambitions and designs on a political promotion down the road.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bachmann: Obama Wants "Re-Education Camps For Young People"

LOL @ Bachmann. Is she actually Ann Coulter? Has anyone ever seen both of them at the same time?

 

[lostfan]

LOL @ Bachmann. Is she actually Ann Coulter? Has anyone ever seen both of them at the same time?

[Balta1701]

Gates did not disappoint.

1. No more F-22s.

2. Replacement Air Force bomber delayed indefinitely.

3. Ballistic missile defense funding leans toward the Navy.

4. Aircraft carrier acquisition slowed, with the fleet eventually dropping to 10 carriers.

5. Next generation cruiser (CGX) delayed indefinitely.

6. VH-71 Presidential helicopter dead.

7. No more than three DDG-1000, and maybe only one.

8. Future Combat Systems funding slashed.

[Balta1701]

The next set of torture memos must really be something. The Congressional Republicans are apparently sticking their neck out again to still protect W.

Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

[Balta1701]

Throwing out the first pitch in Fenway?

 

[lostfan]

It's a shame more Republicans aren't this reasonable.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/fee....gop/index.html

(CNN) -- As I watched President Obama conduct a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, the other day, a chilling realization crossed my mind: I like the guy.

 

This might be a surprise coming from a partisan Republican who also does some work as a lobbyist. (Obama seems to dislike my profession with special intensity.)

 

But it shouldn't be. There is much to like about him. He has a winning smile. He is unself-consciously hip. He is smart. He has self-confidence without being overly smug. He has married well and has two "perfect" daughters (his words, not mine).

 

Obama also has an inspiring life story, and his election to the highest office in the world represents the best possibilities of the American dream.

 

I also want Obama to succeed. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, if Obama can get my 401(k) back to life, if he can get health care costs under control, if he can stop pollution, if he can get the manufacturing sector back on its feet, if he can make our country more secure while regaining for America the moral high ground, if he can find the cure for cancer and bring peace, love and understanding to the world, I am all for it.

 

I am also willing to pay a few extra bucks in taxes for that success, if I can get some economic growth in return.

 

And I am not alone in my feelings. Obama's personal approval ratings are still high, and most Americans simply love his family. Internationally, the president's ratings are off the chart.

 

So, how do I square my approval of the president personally with my disapproval of his policies? How can I like Obama but not the Obama White House?

 

For example, I think the president's budget will lead to inflation or even possible bankruptcy for the nation. I understand the difficult choices that he has tried to make, and I understand the desire to get everything done right now. But governing is about choosing, and the system can't do everything at once.

 

I also disagree with his attack on the lobbying profession. Lobbying the government is protected under the Constitution, because what lobbyists do is petition their government on behalf of the people. Are there some lobbyists who are corrupt or crooked? Sure there are. But most lobbyists, like most politicians, do it the right way, and they serve a vital function of providing expertise to both the private sector and to the public sector.

 

Philosophically, I don't agree with the president. He is a collectivist, where I believe more in individual responsibility. He is a Keynesian, where I am a supply-sider. He is pro-choice. I am pro-life.

 

But I still like him. And I think many of my fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill are stuck in the same trap. They like the man, but don't like the policies. They hope, for the sake of the country, that he is successful, but have their real doubts that his policies will work. And because they are the loyal opposition, they are stuck, in this 24-hour cable news and talk radio culture, saying things about him that make them seem shrill and out of touch. What makes it worse is that, according to the polls, Americans have much more faith in Obama and the Democrats now than they do in the GOP.

 

Here are some suggestions about how Republicans can square the circle, how they can express their admiration for the man and even some of the goals of this administration, without rolling over on the policy front:

 

1) Accept every social invitation from the president. When he invites you to watch the Final Four, go the White House and watch the Final Four. When he wants to buy you a beer, go ahead and buy him a beer back. Let the public know that you appreciate their appreciation for the president, and that while you might disagree with him on policy, you like hanging out with him on occasion.

 

2) Never miss an opportunity to compliment the president and his family for something they have done that puts America in a good light. Root for them. If the first lady represents the country well when she meets the French premier's wife, or if the president does a good job talking to students overseas, applaud them. Don't look for reasons to pick on things that don't matter.

 

3) Agree with certain policy goals. Yes, all children should have access to health care. Yes, we need to have 21st-century schools. Yes, we should have clean water and clean air. Yes, we need to create more jobs. We may have a different approach, but we agree with the goals to make America a better place to live.

 

4) Create and then market your own ideas. The key to beating Obama is not by vilifying him (in my opinion). The key to beating Obama is in coming up with superior ideas to transform the government and to make America a better place to live. Republicans should come up with plans that insist on transformational change of the government bureaucracy, that require greater accountability from failing school districts, that target the high costs caused by frivolous medical lawsuits, that highlight job-killing union contracts and that insist on total transparency in government spending.

 

Reacting to the president's proposals puts Republicans in a tough spot. Having the president react to our proposals puts him on the defensive.

 

Some will say that this "play nice" strategy will backfire on Republicans; that the only way to beat Obama is to stoke fear and attack his character. Others will accuse me of going soft on a Democrat who quite clearly doesn't share the values of most Republicans. But I think there is far greater risk for the Republican brand in not acknowledging what Obama's election means historically, and not appreciating how his example is not only good for Democrats but for the country at large.

 

Tearing this president down is not the way for Republicans to regain a majority coalition, although some pundits and talk show hosts will be tempted to do just that. Instead, Republicans should allow themselves to like the president, just as they fight against his policies. And as they fight his policies, they should do all that they can to market their own ideas so that the American people understand that the Republicans have positive alternatives that will make our country stronger, safer and more prosperous in the future.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's a shame more Republicans aren't this reasonable.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/fee....gop/index.html

Great article. I think he's a bit rosy on the lobbyist aspect, but, his point is well taken even on that subject. I'd love to see more reasonable and intelligent opposition like this, and less screaming and yelling.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I f'in love the Daily Show:

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

[BigSqwert]

I f'in love the Daily Show:

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

 

[kapkomet]

Question for all you lovers of this clip.

 

Do you support indivudualism as opposed to collectivism? Why or why not?

 

And yes, I'm being serious.

[BigSqwert]

Question for all you lovers of this clip.

 

Do you support indivudualism as opposed to collectivism? Why or why not?

 

And yes, I'm being serious.

I don't see the relevance. We aren't remotely close to a collectivism society not matter how much you want to think so.