Clean up on Aisle 111
Posted: December 1, 2010 Filed under: Elections, legislation, Team Obama | Tags: congressional gridlock, Republicans, tax cuts for the wealthy 61 CommentsThe results of the ‘Slurpee Summit’ couldn’t be more clear. Republicans have no intention of cooperating with anything
that the President will put forward. Obama has two choices. Be the Democrat he was elected to be or switch parties. Gridlock is not on the horizon. It’s been here and will only worsen. Obama hasn’t even been able to get the senators from Maine to break away from their right wing colleagues on important issues in the past. How will this improve with worse ones on their way in? Incoming Republican Senators like Rand Paul from Kentucky and Mark Kirk from Illinois are giving interviews and they aren’t pretty.
Steven Benen’s Political Animal at The Washington Monthly analyzes a recent AP item from last night that was released about the time we started our discussion on the Slurpee Summit. Benen says this.
ALL 42 SENATE REPUBLICANS ANNOUNCE HOSTAGE PLAN…. The AP had an item late last night, noting that Senate Republicans were circulating a letter, “quietly collecting signatures” on a plan to “block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending.”
This morning, the Senate GOP leadership unveiled their letter — signed by literally all 42 members of the Republican caucus — declaring their intention to hold the chamber hostage until the tax policy debate is resolved.
“[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate’s attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.”
In practical terms, this means that the Senate Republican caucus will join arms and kill literally every piece of legislation in the lame-duck session — New START, funding U.S. troops, the DREAM Act, etc. — until the government is fully funded and they’re satisfied with the outcome of the debate on tax policy.
What on earth does that last sentence imply? (I bolded it.) Already, the fall out is being felt in the discussion over DADT which Secretary Gates asked Congress to repeal. Are the Republicans really ready to hold the military hostage over taxes to the uber-Wealthy? It sure seems that way.
Just hours after Democrats and Republicans agreed to bargain on tax cuts, and fewer hours still after Defense Secretary Robert Gates implored Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this year, word leaked that Republicans aren’t really interested in any of it — a major repudiation of Gates’ authority.
All of this hostility began just hours after the President announced that he was ‘encouraged’ by meeting with House leaders on both sides. It included this:
“Today we had the beginning of a new dialogue that I hope — and I’m sure most Americans hope — will help break through the noise and produce real gains,” the president said after a two-hour session that included Democratic Congressional leaders as well. “And as we all agreed, that should begin today because there’s some things we need to get done in the weeks before Congress leaves town for the holidays.”
Read the Republicans’ letter to Henry Reid here and see if you can find any hint of reality in the statement above.
David Leonhardt at the NYT believes that Democrats have been given next to no options now.
Democrats have left themselves in a tough spot on the Bush tax cuts. After delaying the issue until after the election and then being trounced in that election, they find themselves with little leverage.
If they cannot come up with a plan that can win 60 votes in the Senate, which means at least two Republican votes, Republicans can filibuster any bill. All of the tax cuts would then expire on Dec. 31. When the new Republican House majority arrives in January, it will be able to make its first order of business a retroactive tax cut — forcing President Obama and Senate Democrats to choose between a purely Republican plan and an across-the-board tax increase.
So the big question is whether Democratic leaders can come up with any compromise that centrist Democrats and a couple of Republican senators — Scott Brown, who represents liberal Massachusetts? George Voinovich of Ohio, who is retiring? — are willing to accept.
“My Republican colleagues…know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter, they have simply put in writing the political strategy that the Republicans pursued this entire Congress: Namely, obstruct, delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of American people. Very cynical, but very obvious. Very transparent.”
I’d say it’s more than that Harry. It’s a drop dead letter if there ever was one.
The Presidential Democratic Values Apology Tour
Posted: November 30, 2010 Filed under: Catfood Commission, Surreality, Team Obama | Tags: bipartisanship, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Obama apologizes for being too bipartisan 48 Comments
No. It didn’t take place in Saudi Arabia. It took place on Capitol Hill. It’s proof to me of an alternate universe there.
Ed Henry just said that it’s true that President Obama apologized for failing to be bipartisan and promised to work harder to find common ground.
There was a Republican presser with a follow up column at WAPO today by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Both were a joke. They don’t want to work with their Democratic colleagues. They want a one term Democratic president and damn any Democrat that believes any differently after they’ve said it over and over again.
Here’s Johnny!! (and Closet Case Mitchie too!)
The day after the election, President Obama seemed to acknowledge that a change in course is needed when he conceded that “the overwhelming message” he heard from the voters was “we want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy.”
Despite what some Democrats in Congress have suggested, voters did not signal they wanted more cooperation on the Democrats’ big-government policies that most Americans oppose. On the contrary, they want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private-sector job growth. They want us to stop the spending binge, cut the deficit and send a clear message on taxes and regulations so small businesses can start hiring again.
We can work together and accomplish these things, but the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress first will have to prioritize. It’s time to choose struggling middle-class families and small businesses over the demands of the liberal base. It’s time to get serious.
What isn’t clear about this? They’ve said what they want and that’s all that they want. There’s no sign of cooperation here unless it’s you do what we say. Which is frankly kind’ve weird given we’ve gotten so much Republican-style policy through Capitol Hill without them.
What’s the President apologizing for? Gee, I know you mugged me, next time I’ll be sure to carry more cash and less credit, I’m so sorry.
Still, despite all the talk of a fresh start, Obama acknowledged the elephant in the room – what he called “the current hyper-partisan climate.”
“There are always those who argue that the best strategy is simply to try to defeat your opposition, instead of working with them,” the president said.
He needed look no further than McConnell to see someone whose stated goal is to make sure Obama does not win a second term. And in a Washington Post opinion piece published Tuesday by McConnell and Boehner, the rhetoric seemed distinctly McConnell-esque.
The column – titled “Where we and Democrats can work together” – called on the White House and Democratic leaders to “prioritize.”
“It’s time to choose struggling middle-class families and small businesses over the demands of the liberal base,” the GOP leaders wrote. “It’s time to get serious.”
Okay, let’s just start from the assumption that it’s not just the liberal base that doesn’t want their social security and Medicare privatized or shut down. Let’s also assume that most of us ARE concerned about jobs and not tax cuts. What exactly do they think the demands of the liberal base are? Giving unemployed people their unemployment checks? I haven’t seen any decent demands coming out of the liberal base in forever! No demand to shut GITMO. No demand to get out of Afghanistan. No demand to stop giving preferential treatment to banks. No demand to not put American citizens on hit lists. No demand to hold Cheney and Dubya accountable for breaking the Geneva Convention. What frigging demands? We can’t even protect a Woman’s right to choose over Insurance companies’ rights to extraordinary profits! DADT should’ve been gone by now and Pay Equity should’ve passed. What FRIGGING demands?
Yet, if you read reports from the PBS Newshour, POTUS is “Encouraged”. (Videos of pressers from this link)
Encouraged about what? Giving multimillionaires tax cuts? Implementing Allan Simpson’s plans to send seniors to homeless shelters? Maybe, it’s their desire to tank START?
What fresh hell is this?
Notable tweets from the un-notable Ed Henry CNN on the “Slurpee summit”
edhenrycnn Ed Henry
(oldest to newest)
President striking conciliatory tone, saying he’s committed to “common ground” on taxes — a phrase Boehner used several times
Breaking news: Senior admin official tells CNN the President did tell Repubs behind closed doors he failed to reach out enough in 1st 2 yrs
Senior official tells CNN President told Repubs “he had to do better and the President is ready to do his part” in the days to work together
Senior admin official is confirming account from Republicans that Potus acknowledged “he had not reached out enough” in words of Cantor
Behind the Screen Name
Posted: November 30, 2010 Filed under: Populism, the internet | Tags: anonymity on the net, blogstalking, screen names, trolls 64 CommentsI can remember the first time I got on AOL and had to think up a ‘screen name’ after being told it wasn’t cool to use my
real name. Dakinikat is actually my second screen name from there and it’s about 12 or so years old. I used to go by Anais for a long time. The Dkat moniker came after I started practicing Tibetan Buddhism and a relationship had ended. It was my fresh start in middle age. I used it to search out follow Buddhists on line since there wasn’t a huge community of them around me. You’ll see many of them pop in here ever so often because we’ve all gotten so close from the first years in the AOL Buddhist Chat room.
I actually was outed about a 1 and 1/2 years ago in a blog that hated Obama detractors and Hillary Supporters. It really bothered me then because the 2008 primary was so ugly and I had just started blogging. I really didn’t want my political views known to my students before they got to know me. I always like to taunt their opinions from all sides of the political spectrum and most of the time they have no clue about my political affiliation or they get it wrong. I was actually warned when I started Sky Dancing not to put too much personal information here because there were people that would abuse it. Now, you can find out who I am pretty easily through my twitters and my FaceBook if you’re really that interested. I still like the penname/screename and it tickles me when I talk to folks who know me as ‘kini’ or “daki’ or my IRL nickname ‘kat’. I personally respect people that don’t want to be outed because of that adventure and a later one involving some of the same folks and Hillbuzz. There was an incident a few months ago and I used the opportunity to prod a troll by releasing information I had gleaned from the net off of his email which was hidden to any one but an administrator. I didn’t totally out him, but he knew that I knew who he was and and he suddenly freaked.
So, what got me waxing philosophical about my screen id is this article in the NYT by Julie Zhuo, the product design manager at Facebook. She has a piece today–‘Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt’–that talks about blogstalking and trolls. It also talks about site managers and their attempts to control the troll populace. There are the classic stories out there that just make you cringe over the behavior of your fellow human beings. (They’re ugly so I’m not putting them up here, you can read them there yourself.) She even tells an old Greek Classic story about a man who could hide behind invisibility and took advantage of his status to do horrid things. Anonymity on the web does provide a shield for rude behavior. It also has led to illegal activity, so should it be actively discouraged?
Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one’s car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People — even ordinary, good people — often change their behavior in radical ways. There’s even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.
Many forums and online communities are looking for ways to strike back. Back in February, Engadget, a popular technology review blog, shut down its commenting system for a few days after it received a barrage of trollish comments on its iPad coverage.
Many victims are turning to legislation. All 50 states now have stalking, bullying or harassment laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication. Last year, Liskula Cohen, a former model, persuaded a New York judge to require Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who she felt had defamed her, and she has now filed a suit against the blogger. Last month, another former model, Carla Franklin, persuaded a judge to force YouTube to reveal the identity of a troll who made a disparaging comment about her on the video-sharing site.
But the law by itself cannot do enough to disarm the Internet’s trolls. Content providers, social networking platforms and community sites must also do their part by rethinking the systems they have in place for user commentary so as to discourage — or disallow — anonymity. Reuters, for example, announced that it would start to block anonymous comments and require users to register with their names and e-mail addresses in an effort to curb “uncivil behavior.”
So, the anonymity cuts both ways on the web. Like I said, I’d prefer my students get to know me before they read any of my strong opining over here. This is especially true when criticizing this president since it has frequently been framed as ‘racism’ and I live and teach in a community where I am the minority.
You can see throughout our commenters here that there’s a mix between screen names users and people who riff on some version of their real names. We do screen all first time commenters for signs of spam and nastiness, but I’ve gotten so used to screen names I don’t give them a second thought. What I want to know is does it make any difference to see the name vs. the screen name? Is there a difference between reading Digby’s opinions and Jane Hamsher’s when you can put a face and a name to the latter? I’m still bemused by the stories of shock when Digby was revealed to be Heather, a woman. My other question is wondering if there’s a different standard for front pagers and down pagers? Still, I agree that some of the most virulent stuff comes from the folks that can successfully maintain anonymity.
Will lifting the veil of anonymity promote civil behavior or stalking? I’m curious about what you think..
Devasting Wikileaks leads to loss of life and calls for Clinton to Resign!!!
Posted: November 29, 2010 Filed under: Diplomacy Nightmares, just because, The Media SUCKS, Wikileaks | Tags: sillly journalist responses to wikileaks, Wikileaks royal gossip 67 Comments
Or not …
Addressing the Ambassador directly, Prince Andrew then turned to regional politics. He stated baldly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too”) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: “And this time we aim to win!” Without contradicting him, the Ambassador gently reminded him that the United States does not see its presence in the region as a continuation of the Great Game. We support Kyrgyzstan’s independence and sovereignty but also welcome good relations between it and all of its neighbors, including Russia.
¶10. (C) The Prince pounced at the sound of that name. He told the Ambassador that he was a frequent visitor to Central Asia and the Caucasus and had noticed a marked increase in Russian pressure and concomitant anxiety among the locals post-August events in Georgia. He stated the following story related to him recently by Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev. Aliyev had received a letter from President Medvedev telling him that if Azerbaijan supported the designation of the Bolshevik artificial famine in Ukraine as “genocide” at the United Nations, “then you can forget about seeing Nagorno-Karabakh ever again.” Prince Andrew added that every single other regional President had told him of receiving similar “directive” letters from Medvedev except for Bakiyev. He asked the Ambassador if Bakiyev had received something similar as well. The Ambassador answered that she was not aware of any such letter.
¶11. (C) The Duke then stated that he was very worried about Russia’s resurgence in the region. As an example, he cited the recent Central Asian energy and water-sharing deal (septel), which he claimed to know had been “engineered by Russia, who finally pounded her fist on the table and everyone fell into line.” (NOTE: Interestingly, the Turkish Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic recently described her analysis of the deal to the Ambassador in strikingly similar language. END NOTE.)
¶12. (C) Showing that he is an equal-opportunity Great Game player, HRH then turned to the topic of China. He recounted that when he had recently asked the President of Tajikistan what he thought of growing Chinese influence in Central Asia, the President had responded “with language I won’t use in front of ladies.” His interlocutors told the Prince that while Russians are generally viewed sympathetically throughout the region, the Chinese are not. He nodded, terming Chinese economic and possibly other expansion in the region “probably inevitable, but a menace.”
RUDE LANGUAGE A LA BRITISH
I’m sure we should designate Wikileaks a terrorist organization over these terribly embarrassing diplomatic moments!!!! Lives are undoubtedly being lost at this very minute due to the nature of these sensitive topics. Hang them from the Treason Tree, I say!!!
I guess this is my way of saying a lot of people are going completely over the top about the Wikileaks drop including the next Congressman in charge of the Homeland Security Committe. A terrorist organization, Congressman King, really? And what’s with the press? Is Wolf Blitzer pouting because he wasn’t included in the drop?
And my next question is this: VP Cheney can get away with outing an undercover CIA agent and violating the Geneva Convention for all to see, why is this garnering more hand wringing and more talks of treason than that?
Perspective any one?
Notable Tweets from Glenn Greenwald on the subject:
I’m keeping a running list of all the lives lost from the WikiLeaks disclosures – here are the names so far: http://is.gd/hXc0B
The Watchdogs: RT @digby56 “Right now, Wolf Blitzer is on TV acting very upset that the government was unable to keep its secrets from him.”
@erikkain That’s precisely the dynamic driving this. They’re guardians of power and the status quo. That’s what is threatened here.
and one from Jeremy Schahill via Empty Wheel!!!
RT @jeremyscahill: We do know this: Wikileaks didn’t leak the NY Times the bullshit about Iraqi WMDs or Bob Novak Valerie Plame’s identity
and one from Greg Mitchell via Eric Boehlert!
As palm hits forehead…..RT @GregMitch Jack Shafer: Hillary Clinton must quit after these WikiLeaks. http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/






Recent Comments