I always try to look for a silver lining on a cloud. I try to see both sides of the coin, and to be positive. That’s a lot harder today, BUT it is not impossible!
Senator Specter is switching from a Republican to a Democrat, and this gives the Democratic Party absolute power in Washington DC. They now have full control of the White House and both Houses of Congress as well as a filibuster-proof majority. That means they can pass and do anything they want, and no one can stop them except themselves.
Therein lies the silver lining.
It’s been 100 days for President Obama
It’s been well over 2 YEARS for the Democratic Congress
While tomorrow is day 100, Thursday is day1 in a completely new respect:
THERE CAN BE NO MORE EXCUSES
Nothing washes, nothing is credible, no scapegoating can work. Democrats have absolute power, and while-yes, some things take time to fix-not everything does. As such, on Thursday, President Obama, the Democratic Party, the House Democrats, and the Senate Democrats (complete with their favorite tool of the day, Sen. Specter) will have either accomplished SOMETHING significant, or they will have failed.
So while NBC, Kos, HuffPo, and Obama fans everywhere might look misty-eyed at The One on Wednesday with spin and claims of “Best President Ever” the reality is that on Thursday morning he will have accomplished absolutely nothing after Democrats spent $12000000000000.00 and have absolute power.
Truth Commission to look into torture? Bring it on because if they don’t, only Democrats can be blamed now.
Stop the Iranian nuclear program? They better, and they better do it soon because Israel’s not gonna wait forever, Iran’s not even slowing down, and there’s no one else to blame now.
6-7million Americans without jobs? Better get them jobs soon because there’s no one to blame for it now.
Do you really think Specter is going to change his voting pattern? This move will have no impact in Washington. It is strictly a move to help him in the state of Pennsylvania. As for Republicans, they no longer have to worry about him but now have a reliable advocate on the other side of the aisles. For the Democrats, it just means that people will say there are 60 Democrats in the Senate but actually, its still 59 with one Republican wearing a “D” around his neck.
Your problem here is you’re betting against the American people. An economic recovery is likely, not neccesarly because of Obama’s policies, but because thriving is what Americans do best. When that happens, Democrats will get all the credit whether they deserve it or not.
Supermajorities are never are good thing. It’s a sign of how out of kilter the last adminstration left things.
This is what the Administration is taking credit for accomplishing so far:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/foundationforchange
Specter will move to the left. He won’t be an automatic filibuster breaker, but you’re going to see him on the other side an awful lot more than you have. You own party will move further to the extreme right, which is a political graveyard. Oh, an the public isn’t blaming Obama for the economy. They know who did this.
100 days, 100 lame excuses for failure.
What’s going to happen when the economy never recovers? It’s always been all about the economy, and have you looked at the unemployment adta lately — getting worse by the day.
We’ll take that.
There was so much piling on Arlan Spector when he voted for the stimulus. Was it really worth giving the Dems a fillibuster-proof majority to cleanse the GOP of all heresy?
Is it true what they said on ABC’s “This Week” — that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republican is now the lowest in decades? This explains, I think, some of the disparity between certain polls — such as ABC/CNN, which give Obama a 69% approval rating and the Pew poll, where he comes in lower. It depends on what percent of Democrats/Republicans/Independents are included in the poll sample.
I really do think that that the GOP has — by driving people who are pro-choice, anti-US-as-world-cop, pro-immigration reform, etc. out of the Reagan Big Tent — marginalized itself as the party of the Evangelicals and the party of the Confederacy.
Is Sarah Palin really the vision of the future? Is Utah’s Jon Huntsman going to be deemed too “liberal” because he supports civil unions for same sex couples? Who is a true Republican and who is a RINO?
If you believe in your principles, how can you hand over complete control of the nation to your arch enemies in the pursuit of ideological purity? Spector would have voted with the GOP most of the time, just as he has for his entire career. The man may now move to the Left, but he’s no Democrat. He voted with the GOP majority 65.3% of the time, compared to average Democrat, who voted with the GOP majority only 9.3% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/party-voters/65/
And Spector didn’t have the luxury of representing South Carolina; he had to get elected and re-elected in Blue State Pennsylvania, and he needed — as he stated — to represent the voters of Pennsylvania and not simply to represent the Republican Party.
In a state like Pennsylvania, is it not preferable to have someone in the Senate who is 65% Republican, rather than 9% Republican (i.e. the percentage of times that Spector versus the average Democrat voted with the GOP majority)?
I really think that you guys need to do a lot of careful reflection on way forward.
As I keep saying, you are betting the entire ranch on the failure of Obama. In the face of loud and withering GOP opposition, he retains a remarkable level of electoral support. If he is perceived to be successful in fulfilling his most important campaign promises, then it’s hard to see things turning around for the GOP anytime soon, and, if that happens, the country shall already have been transformed.
For example, it would be much easier to prevent an Obama-style universal health coverage plan from being implemented in the first place, than to take it away from the American people, once they have it.
These are the sorts of issues which are dramatically impacted by the change in party affiliation of Senator Spector.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?
I think it’s great that Arlen “single bullet” Specter has finally come out of the closet!!! He has come out just in time to insure that he will go to his grave as the left wing, perverted Democrat he always hidden. What a great legacy for Arlen!.. Even though Arlen doesn’t know where he is or who he is talking to, Arlen decides to suck up to Barack Hussein Obama two minutes to midnight before he checks out forever!! …..I guess Arlen is sure Barack will raise him from the dead!!
Sen. James Demint says he wants there to be 30 true believer Republicans in the Senate. I completely agree with him! Circular firing squad, take your positions! Ha ha ha! Republican idiots!
Larry W, you’re opening sentence is a common misperception among your type of thinking. To reiterate:
Specter with a D behind his name changes nothing from Specter with an R behind his name in Congress. He was always a good bet to side with the liberals in Congress, and when it comes to needed votes, the majoity don’t care about the party designation. Obama/Reid/Pelosi had him 95% of the time already, and they will still have him 95% of the time. There is no “cleansing” except your side will lose the ability to pass Specter off as proof you are being “bipartisan”. ooops….
Specter has said he will not be an “automatic 60th vote for cloture”. Then again, he also said he wouldn’t leave the GOP. I’d say if Pelosi and Reid attempt to strip him of some power as a lesser D in their family, they may find a bitter Specter opposing them more in the future. Right now, he’s just trying to *be* there in the future…. typical political opportunist.
Specter is simply protecting his proverbial rear eand. After polling and traveling the state, he figured out there wasn’t a conservative left who planned on supporting him in the primary for reelection. This is a pol, protecting his pol butt and seat of power. Nothing more…. as he, himself, copped to today.
Apparently, Mr. Specter believes representing PA does not include representing his GOP constituents who put the man into office year after year. To see their “adoration” of a guy who considers himself a “moderate” GOP, watch the below..
So perhaps I should rephrase that “cleansing” statement above. Specter was “cleansed”… by his own constituents because of the big issues… just as it should be. They let him know in advance of the primary that slim chance in hell by conservatives was to be his campaign slogan.
All I can say is buh bye, and it will be hard to miss a conservative who was rarely there. And most certainly not at the right times of late.
But so amazing to see the amoeba think, like Magic Dog and Larry, that suggests this “tiny minority” of conservatives has the power to drive Specter into the arms of his adoring Dem fans. Were the nation so “moderate” as you think, Specter would have had no trouble in a GOP primary. ‘splain that one, O’faithful plants?
I feel a feeling of relief. Let the Dems do the heavy lifting.
@MataHarley:
I don’t think this will be completely true. Specter will need to make some slides to the left to get their vigorous support in the primary; EFCA is off the table for now, but things like health-care and torture prosecution (which he has recently talked about) now have more wiggle-room. You’re right, though, in that 60 votes isn’t much different from 59, except when it comes to cloture. He may not be an automatic vote, but Specter will now have to think long and hard before he votes “NO” on cloture, something he didn’t have to do as a Republican. It’ll be interesting to see how many, if any, cloture votes pass because of him.
The silver lining is this: It’s a safe assumption that Specter would have lost to Toomey, and Toomey would have lost in the general to a strong leftist. Now, Specter will likely be the Democratic candidate and winner – giving you guys a right-leaning Democrat in PA instead of a left-wing one. Of course, if these are the kinds of silver linings the GOP is searching for, it’s probably time to re-evaluate their strategy for a permanent majority.
Nope, trizzlor. This has been in back room negotiations for over two weeks. The DNC has promised to give him unmitigated DNC support, and the big Zero has promised to campaign for him.
And the reason he’s had to switch his sorry butt to D, and has burned bridges with his PA supporters, is because he *didn’t* do a lot of thinking about his votes before.
Like I said, I don’t believe this will change his votes one iota.. and if it does, he may swing more conservative if Pelosi/Reid don’t reward him big time – *if* he gets reelected at all.
Right now this is all about getting DNC money, DNC support, Obama support, long enough to keep his job. Nothing more. He is where he belongs.
Oh, common, Mata. You are rationalizing to the extreme. As I wrote, he voted with the GOP majority 65% of the time, compared to 9% for the average Democrat. Now that the GOP has forced him to become a Democrat, he’ll be voting with the GOP less than 20% of the time.
I think that “card check” is an atrocious idea. Spector was against it; he’ll remain against it — only because he’d look too craven to change his clearly announced position, under the circumstances.
But on other issues — he’d have been with the GOP to force the Dems to make deals or else to force the Dems to make themselves look bad — e.g. the talk about circumventing a GOP fillibuster on health care by putting it on some sort of cheesy, end-run legislative process. Now, the Dems will be able to do what they darn well please, for a minimum of a year and a half (once Franken gets sworn in), and, as I wrote, once things have been legislated into existence, it is very hard to legislate them out of existence. You don’t think that the Dems will take advantage of this once in a generation opportunity to write things into existence, which will always stay in existence?
My favorite poem, once again:
This is the grave of Mike O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His mind was clear.
His will was strong.
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
The man represented PENNSYLVANIA, for goodness sake. And he was 65% Republican. But that wasn’t good enough for you.
I’m curious. How much heresy is permissible?
Are Snow and Collins also RINOs?
I’m just curious.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Specter will move to the left. Not only will he have to, but he’s probably been wanting to. He has voted with the Republicans about two-thirds of the time, and that will now decline to one-quarter of the time and probably less given that he’ll need to win the Democratic primary. Who knows, maybe close to zero if they treat him badly in private.
It’s more than just Senate votes, too. There’s symbolism, and there’s whatever influence he had had behind the scenes in holding back the crazies. There aren’t too many restraints left, and once the dam breaks you could have the Republicans careening off the cliff. It’s happened before, and all the influences these days are for ever-increasing “purity.”
These could be interesting times for your side, that’s for sure.
The only voting record as a so-called conservative that counts is what has happened since January, Larry. And his “deal making” on the stimulus and budget has proven to be considerably less than desireable. Therefore his 65% you like to cite means nothing. Why not cite how he has voted with the Dems since the O’admin came to power? That’s what he is being judged on by his Republican constituents.
Magic Dog, interesting times is just what the Republican party needs to get back to their core beliefs. Then perhaps they can regain some support from independent minded types like me.
oops… moved comment to appropriate thread. Sorry.
Well, “just OK,” given the withering criticism heaped on him by the GOP, and given all the challenges he’s faced, is pretty good.
Let’s look at it another way: I’m sure you’d grade him “poor/terrible.” But SIXTY percent of REPUBLICANS would disagree with you, as would 79% of independents.
And I’m sure you are aware of the polling on “right direction/wrong direction.” From 12% right direct at the time of his inauguration to 50% right direction now — highest figure since Clinton, save for the very short lived little blip at the time of the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
You also didn’t answer my question. Are Snow and Collins also RINOs, in your opinion?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mata, how do you attract independents when you don’t allow for any divergence of opinions on the issues? The question for the Pennsylvania GOP is are they in a position to beat specter in a general election? If not, then the only thing they’ve done is put him out of the Party but not out of representing them. I still believe on a number of issues, the switch will not mean much but we’ll see with his voting patterns.
Sorry, Larry… missed your last question. Short answer… yes. Then again, I’m hard pressed to find any conservatives in Congress at the moment. Especially when you hear Lindsey Graham bragging about being the 15th “most conservative” Congressman. Very sad state of affairs, IMHO.
And before you leap to conclusions (as I posted that in response to CRAP on another thread and misplaced it…), I don’t look at polls like you do. i.e.
No, Larry. That would be any percentile of 1000 or so responders polled that disagree with me. ho hum… especially considering the details of those that admitted they knew nothing, or had no opinion.
In the only poll that matters to me, approx 48% of the nation’s voters agrees that Obama was not the right man for the Oval Office. I suggest you remember that one.
I think you hit all nail and no thumb on this, Curt. I think this is good for Republicans who, like me, are committed to returning our party to Reagan-type of conservatism one again. It is NOT impossible. And, Arlen Specter isn’t necessary for Republicans to accomplish that.
Hey Magic, can you say ‘Tea Party’? Some of these folks (um, the public) differ with you on that one, buddy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAoJPbroH3k&feature=email
jmaes m, I *am* an independent. The party allows for divergence of opinions since they obviously have candidates that don’t come close to the party’s official platform. Were that platform a litmus test, there wouldn’t be an R in the dome to be seen.
I’m not a voter on abortion or religious issues as a conservative. My focus is, and remains, on domestic economics and fiscal responsibility, minimal government, and foreign affairs/defense spending. And on these, the Republican party – nae, Congress as a whole – has totally lost my vote of confidence.
I’ll admit if I’m wrong in the future, but I repeat… Specter R is no different than Specter D. Time, however, will prove that one way or another.
Magic Dog, in #16, said this was about symbolism. That’s an interesting take since the average political voyeur will take that to mean GOP defection. I however see that symbolism more realistically… From the horses mouth, this was all about his ability to get reelected because his conservative base told him in no uncertain terms, he was a loser.
If political expediency and the quest for power isn’t “symbolism” as to what this is about, nothing is. It will, however, get spun as some moral judgment in the quest to mask the truth.
In the Democratic primary, RUSH LIMBAUGH urged Republicans to switch parties so they could vote for Hillary…remember Operation Chaos? Judging by the November elections, perhaps some of them never went back into the Republican fold…..Pennsylvania is a deep blue state, and Specter has been getting elected by Democrats, Independents and Republicans for years because he represents the interests of more Pennsylvania voters than his opponents. Now they get to vote for him as a Democrat, and you can bet they will too. If conservatives don’t want Specter, and are Ok so see him go and Rush didn’t sound too disappointed today, the Dems will take him for sure.
Scott said: “It’s been 100 days for President Obama
It’s been well over 2 YEARS for the Democratic Congress
While tomorrow is day 100, Thursday is day1 in a completely new respect:
THERE CAN BE NO MORE EXCUSES”
lol, I doubt that many Conservatives were going to allow any excuses anyway. Not that any of us should either, like I’ve said before, he’ll be judged come votin’ time. In the mean time, this does help Obama’s agenda, and deals at least a Psychological if not a perhaps a strong political blow to the dwindling Republican minority.
Well, Bush got 50.7% in 2004 — he said that this gave him a lot of political “capital,” you may recall; Obama got 52.9% in 2008.
When you say Obama was considered “not the right man” for the Oval Office; it gives a false impression. A large number of voters certainly considered both men to be qualified, but preferred one over the other. I personally viewed the election as “win/win,” because I was confident in McCain governing from the right-center, as opposed to the far right. So I voted for Obama, but I wouldn’t have said that McCain was “not the right man” for the job.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Bush indeed said he intended to use his political capital. Obviously, Obama is doing the same.
The difference between then and now is the balance in power in Congress… a House where the GOP needn’t show up for a vote, and a Senate where they had regularly corraled
threetwo Republicans and one Democrat temporarily wearing an “R” in this Congressional session. Bush’s political capital faced massive opposition and resulted in many a failure to accomplish things he wanted to.The only “false impression” is your erroneous translation of “not the right man”. I did not use the word qualified, you did. Freudian slip perhaps?
48% did not think Obama was the right man for the Oval Office. If they did, they would have voted for him. I didn’t think McCain was right either. He was, as usual, the lesser of two evils.
Mata, what did Bush want to accomplish, but couldn’t, on account of “massive opposition?”
I’m thinking immigration reform, for one, where the brunt of the massive opposition came from his own party.
Addendum: thought of another — offshore oil + ANWR drilling; this one was blocked by Dems (good thing, in my opinion).
Larry W/HB
I agree that the Dems now totally own the good and the bad now. They have already held Congress for 2 years. They will own increasing unemployment as punishing corporate tax rates and ‘green’ restrictions/taxes drive more businesses out of the country. They will own it when we get hit with another terrorist attack. Spector as a Dem is just one less useful idiot that they could use to claim ‘bipartisanship’ when he voted with them.
Obama’s approval ratings remain high because he hasn’t been in office long enough for the effect of his policies to be felt by the average person. The average person doesn’t even realize they are still getting taxed under Bush tax rates.
Obama has skyrocketed the deficits, which don’t have an immediate impact on the masses in their day-to-day lives. But when these same masses start getting hit with higher taxes on everything, lets see how popular the Dems and Obama remain. Let’s not forget that the highpoint of McCain’s campaign came when gas prices skyrocketed.
And because Obama has been shielded by the MSM for the screw-ups he has made so far, his personal popularity remains high while support for his policies wanes. This is a clear disconnect, and one I anticipate will dissolve as it becomes impossible to separate Obama and the Dems from the inevitable future outcomes of their ruinous economic policies and disastrous defense/foreign policy positions.
Well, that’s a very forthright statement, expressed with breathtaking certitude.
Increasing tax rates to those of the Clinton era — 39% marginal tax rate. Compared to 70% rate in the 70s and 90% rate in the Eisenhower 50s. Yet the economy always grew and times weren’t so bad. Reagan borrowed massively and doubled the debt/GDP ratio with his own “stimulus” package to end an earlier recession.
Economists, including conservative economists, have been advocating higher energy taxes for two decades — the original idea goes back to John Anderson’s (GOP moderate) independent Presidential campaign in 1980.
And we’ll be shifting some health care costs from the insurance companies to the government, but overall costs will go down and consumer satisfaction is likely to go up. Do you know which major health insurance “company” currently has the highest level of consumer satisfaction? Medicare.
“Disastrous foreign policy positions.” Hmmm. Can hardly do worse with Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran than Bush did. Trading F-22s for more special ops and special op transports seems like a good swap. Iraq will eventually partition itself into thirds, no matter how long we stay, just as Lt. General William Odom (Reagan’s NSA chief) always predicted.
Whether we get nuked on our own soil won’t depend a whit on what happened or ever happens in Iraq. It’ll depend on motivation and resources of terrorists and ability of intelligence to detect and interdict. If you think that the national security of the country comes down to waterboarding and extreme sleep deprivation, then perhaps you have a point, but Abu Ghraib caused us vastly more harm than could ever justify what we got out of waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib happened because of a top down culture which tolerated and tacitly encouraged that sort of thing.
Bottom line: I’m not so sure that your predictions are correct.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
This is all about the pendulum. The Republicans stopped having any ideas quite some time ago. But for 9/11, which was a national emergency that caused the public to rally to the president, George W. would have been a one-termer. They have failed to recognize the ground shifting under their feet, and they are still failing to recognize it. In that sense, they’re a bit like the American car companies that acted as if one more pickup truck or another SUV could save them.
The only thing that will turn the Republicans around is the political equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. You’re not quite there yet. It’ll take another crushing defeat in the off-year elections, and then Obama’s landslide re-election. Then, I think the message will START to get through. But from there to rebuilding the party is going to be a much longer struggle than you imagine.
Hell, for all I know, Specter’s defection will be followed by some others. And if you look at the list of senators up in 2010, any Republican has to be pretty damn worried. Think of the 1934 off-year elections, when the Democrats went from 59 to 69 seats in the U.S. Senate and gained another 9 in the House after the huge shift of 1932. And it wasn’t over. The 1936 elections put a stake through the heart of the Republican Party that wasn’t fully reversed until the 1990s.
The great thing about this is that none of it’s a secret, yet talking about it will only harden the resolve of the lunatics who are about to complete their takeover of the empty shell of what so recently was a revitalized Republican machine. Didn’t last too long, did it?
Arlen, your excuse was the weakest I’ve heard in ages. “Because of the ‘hard right’ conservatives.”……Arlen, have you been asleep? WHAT HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES???? It’s been RINO city since the November elections.
Toomey was gonna rake you over the coals come next year. You sensed the winds and you bolted.
Buhh-bye.
Be careful of what you wish for Arlen & Dems.
Obama’s victory and his continued stratospheric approval numbers are solely due to a mainstream media intent on punishing Bush and the Republicans for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. There was never any desire to investigate Obama’s foibles and inadequacies for the job. The media continues to fail to check virtually everything that comes out of this man’s mouth or his history. If the media had been the hard-hitting investigative body they claim themselves to be, Obama would have lost. The media hammered Bush Sr. on his “read my lips: no new taxes” speech, but where are any criticisms of Obama’s lies and broken promises?
Until the media starts acting responsible, any ratings polls aren’t going to be worth a plug nickel.
Jeff V
Mata,
If the economy turns around, how long do you think it will take for the GOP to make a comeback?
Also, the dems keep promoting moderates like Brian Schweitzer, as the GOP is running their moderates out of town. Americans seem to like moderates. I know I do. During the campaign, the dems kept the far left somewhat quiet as FoxNews was covering the angry crowds at the Palin rallies. I think this helped the Obama campaign in attracting independents and moderates. With BOTH parties moving in opposite strategical directions, what do you foresee for the future of American politics?
@ruaqtpi2: I agree that polls are not a measure of good policy, but they are a measure of trends in popular thinking and the desired direction of the country. Right now, most Americans are supportive of Obama and are not buying your pitch that he’s an under-qualified Alinsky-ite. As did McCain, you ignore them at your own peril.
Your broader point feeds into the current right-wing rhetoric that a minority that makes up “real Americans” know what’s really good for the country, inherently deserves to be in charge, and will be proven right in the long term (hopefully through a banking collapse or terrorist attack). This is why the Tea Parties didn’t offer a cogent alternative or even an honest discussion – the majority of attendants truly feel that Obama stole the presidency (birth-certificate, etc.), is blatantly undeserving of it, and that the electorate will eventually return to them if they just yell louder.
I’m not a big fan of Bill Maher as a commentator, but I think this quote sums it up: “America’s found a better boyfriend, and he’s black”. Good luck waiting on a better media.
In the past your election predictions for 2006 and 2008 were not very accurate. I see no reason to think that they will be in 2010. The Democrats will pick up at least 2 more seats maybe 5 more in the Senate.
Larry #27, let me say that I didn’t agree with all of Bush’s domestic policies. Immigration? I was on the fence. But to a few more specifics INRE what wasn’t accomplished… and this may also relate to Magic Dog since he apparently hasn’t heard about any GOP “ideas” for the past 8 or 9 years.
No one bothers to address Bush’s Energy plan. Probably because the media lead around by their liberal nose, tried to present it as only ANWR. Apparently it worked since when you mentioned it didn’t get accomplished, you are obviously unaware that ANWR was never the only oil and gas fields the admin was trying to open for domestic production…. such is the perpetuation of myth and ignorance. But if you’re a happy guy, I guess that’s all that matters.
Also ignored is the Nat’l Transmission Grid Study that was thwarted by the liberal/progressives because it dared to involve public lands. This is an Obama “inheritance”, BTW… His darling far leftists will fight him on his alternative energy unless he tears down a factory to run the transmission lines thru. But a park? Desert with turtles? Never.
Personally, using the standard DNC/Alinsky tactic, I would have screamed racism since the enviro wackos were specifically denying the Navajos much needed income. But of course, the media could never point that out.
BTW, something that no one gives Bush, or the GOP majority Congress credit for is the consumer tax credits for alternative energy… i.e. the Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit.
Social Security reform is another issue that never got addressed. Bush repeatedly said he was open to bipartisan work shops on all avenues, but the Dems didn’t want to play if he didn’t take any privatization off the table. Now I’ll wait for the Monday morning quarterbackers to come in with the predictable. So let me give you my retort in advance… .is your money any safer in SS with the government? No… the only difference is with investments, you see results immediately. When the government holds your cash and doesn’t have it, you merely get a last minute IOU… like California. So whether your confiscated cash was in the market, or the government… you’re still broke. So spare me.
I suppose I’d have to go back year by year and find the obscure legislation that was never sexy enough to make the talking head circuit. But it’s a moot point. The media indoctrination is, and will always be, Bush… bad. Obama… the messiah.
Bub, the Dems won the 2006 midterms by running moderates instead of leftists. Had they run lots of Pelosis and Reids, they would have lost their shirt.
But note that under the O’admin, and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid unchecked progressive power and agenda, they are pushing those “moderates” to play the leftist game with them, or else. They are relative newbies, but even newbies will be able to figure out when something’s wrong in the future. They too have to face reelections. And all is not going to be well in Obama heaven.
As Fit said above, in one of his more reasoned responses here (kudos on that, BTW, Fit… what’s up today?), the economy will turn around because of the American citizen resilience. Not because of Obama. It’s already starting the slowing and wide turns in the leading indicators. The Govt spending at the level done wasn’t necessary.
But as the economy does turn, and the repercussions of the spending hit… sunsetting of Obama’s promised middle class $13 per paycheck, sunsetting of Bush taxes, cap and trade, health care, the budget and repeated bailouts to bail out the bailouts, deflation followed by inflation because of dollar devaluation … that’s when fiscal conservatism will again become in vogue. Joe Blow O’faithful is assuming that, when the turn around happens, they will have the same earning power.
Think again….
Right now few can see in that direction. Not in their mental focus to do so. Then there are intelligent others, like Larry W, who actually think Obama and Congress will be stopping at “Reagan tax levels”. HA! That promise goes down the drain like the “middle class tax cuts”, which turns out to be a 12-pack every week, and only for the next year and a half at best. After that, you lose not only the 12-pack, but a case or two more when the Bush tax cuts sunset.
Yep… Joe Blow liberal America has a rude awakening on the horizon.
All that said, you are basing the future of conservatives… whether or not they call themselves “Republican”… on today’s trends. Nothing is status quo. Clinton lost midterms sweep in the middle of his two terms. People who believe Obama can give them everything and still enjoy the same earning power will get a new epiphany. Not today.. perhaps not until late next year. But the pendulum swings often, and always in both directions. Especially with economic policies, it takes time for the acts to reveal themselves as folly.
Problem with this particular Congressional/WH spending action is it will be tough to reverse the damage unless it can be halted/negated before all the taxpayer cash is confiscated, and spent by this money drunk Congress.
Arlen Spector changed sides? Did he become a Republican?
Good riddance. Let him formally join the Hate America Self-Loathing Democratic Party.
While the economy will probably recover, the staggering amount of debt that Obama and the Democrats have foisted on us so that they can turn America into a bribed crony machine will cripple us for years so that they can prop up their political power at the expense of the American taxpayers.
Jimmy Carter Part II is going to a bigger failure this time around. I prefer Bill Clinton a 100 times over Obama. A 12 year-old could have told him that it wouldnt be a good idea to have a photo-op of a commercial-sized jet, such as the Presidential plane, flying low over NYC’s commercial center. Even his lapdog media couldnt hide the panic that it caused. What an idiot!
Specter has been a traitor for years, now he will belong to the party of traitors. No way the economy can recover now, O’Dumbo has skipped Socialism/Communism and leaped far ahead of them in enslaving the people. Socialized medicine is doomed to fail because no one wants to spend all those years in school to become a GS rated government employee with their salary controlled by the idiots in congress. The only two successful government organization in history is the military who protects the country, when they are allowed to and Welfare which has been successful in keeping millions on the dole to vote democrat and keep millions of retarded relatives of politicians employed as administrators of welfare while ripping off the taxpayers.
If the economy turns around, how long do you think it will take for the GOP to make a comeback?
—————-
If the economy improves, Obama will get the credit. If it fails to turn around, Bush will get the blame. Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover and won five straight presidential elections doing so, and kept control of Congress for 50 years. The Republicans are now staring at the edge of the cliff, but the lemmings will jump off nonetheless. Have a nice fall, wingnuts!
“Economists, including conservative economists, have been advocating higher energy taxes for two decades.”
Regardless of what you assert some economists recommend, raising corporate taxes and green taxes/restrictions will help drive businesses out of the USA, hence job losses. Look at our own state. As for the tax rate reverting to Clinton era rates, that addresses income taxes only. And if you think Obama’s massive, unprecedented, spending is going to be supported without increasing taxes on the middle class, and not just income taxes, please cite some objective, reliable economic analysis for that. Everything I have read and heard says that it can’t be done.
“And we’ll be shifting some health care costs from the insurance companies to the government, but overall costs will go down and consumer satisfaction is likely to go up.”
On what do you base your assertion that customer satisfaction is likely to increase? Or that costs will go down? When has the government handled anything more fiscally efficient than the private sector? Or provided better customer service? I have had to deal with Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid for those out-of-state) for my mother for 2 years now. You would have to go to the DMV to find more inefficiency and incompetence. I have private health care insurance. I just had surgery for cancer. If you think I, or anyone else, would want to wait weeks or months for some bureaucrat to decide if and what type of treatment they decide I should have, then you are mistaken. A survey done a year or so ago in Canada or Britain found that satisfaction with the health care system was tied to the health care needs of the respondent. Predictably, the people who were most satisfied with their healthcare system were healthy. Wow, hard to believe.
“Can hardly do worse with Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran than Bush did. ”
Talk about breathtaking certitude, LOL! We’ll have to see what the results of Obama’s ‘You’re right, the US sucks’ foreign policy yields. And for the record, Obama owns this now; enough with the grade school ‘I inherited this’ excuse. He will have to accept the responsibility of what HIS foreign policy reaps.
I think the national security of our nation greatly depends on a president who doesn’t give information that aids our enemy in order to throw a bone to the ‘hate America’ left who helped elect him. I don’t share your theory as to why Abu Ghraib happened; we’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether more harm was done by this than anything that was prevented through harsh interrogation is hard to determine as Obama has chosen to keep that info from the public.
As far as waterboarding or sleep deprivation, or whatever else was used that elicited actionable intel, I fully support it. I value the lives of our military men and women and our fellow citizens far more than some terrorist. What should pain my conscience more – that we waterboarded some terrorist, or that fellow citizens died because we didn’t?
Bottom line: You may not be sure if my predictions are correct, but I guess time will tell! Good discussion!
ah yes… Magic Dog, whom I pegged as a partisan ignoramus at the onset, but tried to give the benefit of the doubt… says:
First point: you may be surprised how many Joe Blow progressives find themselves in unlikely company in their anger at their reduced earning power. Obviously, you will not be one of them.
Congratulations on proving that truth and reality only falls in line second or later to your partisan desires, loser. And trust me when I say that when repercussions leer their heads for your absolute vicious stupidity, you will be directly responsible for your grandchildren’s fate.
what an a-hole.
Oh, I realize this. But we’re talking about the politics of it here, and politics starts and ends with credit and blame. Obama’s not going to be blamed for the Republican depression and its effects. And expectations are low. Most people don’t think he can turn it around any time soon, so if Republicans think the voters will turn on Obama in a year or so, they’re in for some rude surprises. Look back at FDR for guidance on that one.
You’d better watch out who you call “loser.” It ain’t my side that just lost its 60th senator. Ain’t my side that got the crap kicked out of it last November. Ain’t my party with a 21% affiliation, the lowest in nearly 30 years. Nope, it’s my side whose president has a 69% approval rating. And cut the crocodile tears about politics, too. Your side played it to the hilt, and you can be sure that the knife will be shoved in and then twisted.
Obama plays a much sharper game than Rove did. Look at his advisors. You know, the ones you just love to hate, Emanuel and Axelrod. Pretty neat trick with Limbaugh, wouldn’t you agree? And now they’ve got the Republicans pegged as the party of No. And then there are your teabaggings, which were turned into a national obscene joke. Do you hear that sound? It’s the whole country, laughing its ass off at you. Sweet, huh?
Yeah, I guess I can see why you are whining about politics being played. Karma’s a bitch. Why, it’s only been 100 days and you people have already gone into full Obama Derangement Syndrome. What do you think the public thinks of you and your pathetic, whining, nasty little sore losers act? Americans don’t respect a sore loser. You’ll see it after you lose five or 10 Senate seats in 2010, and another 20 in the House. Or maybe you won’t. Maybe you’ll keep telling yourselves lies. That’ll be really fun to watch.
Don’t talk that way about George W. Bush. Don’t you think he’s got enough trouble with the bottle as it is?
Dog/loser… get a grip. We all know what “your side” is. But I’m not talking about “party” losers. You see, the difference between you and I is you are a “side” defined by party. I am a “side” defined not by party, but policies from either party that affect our future outcome. I know, with your party mentality, this is extremely hard to absorb. But when the nation suffers…. liberal/progressives and conservatives/moderates alike – because of ill thought out policies, it has nothing to do with parties.
Politics may “start and end with credit and blame”, but I wouldn’t bank on the public awareness in the 21st century… info age and all… being akin to FDR’s day when you had about 90 minutes of news daily on whatever medium the country could afford. Maybe your limited public education history books failed to link technology of the era with poly-sci philosophy.
Your remaining paragraphs are unworthy of addressing. Frankly, I get more cogent thought out of my 6 year old granddaughter. Sophomoric taunts may make you lean back from your keyboard, feeling smug and triumphant in your little mental bubble. But you are banking on the future of the old adage… you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time… but…
Your Alinksky heros feed on populus desperation and bad times for proliferation. Problem is, this is not a populus that accepts “desperation” for very long.
If the economy recovers, they will resent the O’admin confiscation of their earnings. If the economy doesn’t recover, they will indeed hold the O’admin responsible.
I need prove nothing to you. Time will. Evidently, by your posts that demonstrate an education level, time on this planet is not something you can claim to your advantage. But it’s understandable. When I was between 18-28, I felt I knew “everything” too.
If you’re older… well, I’m sure Obama’s got a program for the mentally challenged that works well for you.
[I think you hit all nail and no thumb on this, Curt.]
Sorry, Scott…I meant to say Scott! Oy vay…
#1 Cary
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/foundationforchange
That is lovely. Except when you click on your state, you can’t see WHERE the jobs are saved/created (BS), or any other alleged benefits. You must take the word of The One. Haven’t seen it here. Just longer, longer, longer lines at the Unemployment office, and Human Services, where the Lexus driving, salon nail, Eddie Bauer stroller recipients are coming to pick up their checks. But, thanks anyway.
@MataHarley:
I’m enjoying reading this thread immensely. There are many excellent points from both sides. But Mata, with all due respect… I read you portraying yourself as not having a “side” – I’m calling BS. You may not affiliate yourself with the Republican party, but you have definitely picked a side. And please don’t answer that you’ve chosen the “what’s good for America” side – we are all on that side, even if we disagree on what that is. You’ve written way too many incredibly well researched and intelligent posts,, refuting Dem/Left/Liberal positions, to be able to get away with portraying yourself as anything but Right/Conservative – this doesn’t mean you don’t occasionally agree with us left/liberals, but please don’t expect us to believe that you’re fooling yourself by thinking you’ve not chosen a political side. I say this with the highest respect, as someone not on my side whose intelligent rhetoric I fear the most – you’re one tough cookie. But you have a side – just as we all do.
Mata Hari isn’t smart enough to know it, but it speaks volumes that he/she/it feels compelled to disavow the Republican Party. He/she/it knows how thoroughly hated the Republicans are, so like those liberals of yesteryear who had to call themselves “progressives,” M.H. feels compelled to disavow the twisted freaks that M.H. is actually aligned with.
Thank you for the comments, Cary. Yes, I have a “side” as much as I have avowed political beliefs. Perhaps I should have clarified that those beliefs are not defined by political party”sides”… i.e. Dem vs GOP, or progressive vs moderate. However I will disagree that what I believe, is also not good for America. At least the America of the founders/framers, and the one in which I was raised. Euro-America is not “my” America, nor that of the framers.
So while “all” may feel they know what is good for America, those that feel it needs remaking into a Euro-socialist image are not on the “side” of the framers. In that context, it is not a “one size fits all” model simply by residence.
Dog.. you still here? Would think a mutt would find some hole in which to lie. I have not, nor ever been a “Republican” in my beliefs. I have, however, always been a conservative. My disdain is totally bipartisan. As far as I’m concerned, all of Congress needs to go home and a cleaning “House” and “Senate” is in order. The only way I am “aligned” with a party is by your extremely limited political perception. And that, I take that with the import of a hang nail.
@sybilll:
I didn’t say I was taking the Administration’s word for it, just presenting to this thread what they’re taking credit for. Without withholding my support for the President, I’m inclined to agree with you. With little to no employment opportunities in the entertainment industry (not entirely due to government politics or the economy), my “bread and butter” careers have also been suffering. Catering jobs are being scaled down, leaving little work for those of us who support ourselves in that field. Even being employed with three companies, I’ve fallen behind in my bills, as has everyone I know who works with me. Luckily, I was able to pick up a job at Yankee Stadium, which is lower paying, but steady and reliable. Hopefully, the Yanks will pull out of the slump they seem to be in, and I’ll get some better business! So yes, my point is that I’m seeing what you’re seeing. It’s clear to me that the site I presented is part of a necessary PR machine, meant to inspire confidence in the President’s efforts. It’s like a commercial – the product may or may not be good, but it needs to sell regardless. Personally, I’m hoping we’re on the right track.
@Magic Dog
So, are you saying that 4 1/2 years ago, when the Dems only got 48% of the popular vote, that it meant that they were “thoroughly hated” too? Because we lost the White House are we supposed to give up our convictions and just bend over? I don’t think so.
Mata clearly holds the same view of party politics that I do. I chose to be a Republican because they are the national party that whose platforms more closely identifies with my own principles, not the other way around. Does that mean I agree with every one of those platforms? Of course not, but that is why there are elections of party leadership. That is why there are county, state, and national conventions.
@Cary
Obama’s policies will only make that worse in the long term. The biggest problem with the whole concept of a “robin hood” economic system is that we still have the right to move away if we don’t like where we live. If the people who own and operate the businesses that hire you to cater their events choose to move their companies and their households out of New York, and eventually out of the United States, who do you think is going to pick up the economic slack? Who will be left to hire you?
Without producers, there is no wealth. If you put onerous demands on the businesses and the people that produce the wealth (ie. excessive taxes, fees, regulations) they WILL go away. They will move their corporate headquarters somewhere else, and they will quit providing production in this country. The world is too ripe with economic growth and opportunity for them to put up with being looted by progressives who want to live off someone else’s success and hard work forever.
Spectrer never understood any of this. Regardless of the R that has been at the end of his name for that last 29 years, he has always been just one of the looters.
Once again, a quote from John Galt in Atlas Shrugged (because Ayn Rand’s vision of the future, over fifty years ago, is so terrifyingly accurate): “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
To all:
Wow. I have to say that this is one of the more interesting threads I’ve read! I love the back and forth between Mata, Cary, Wisdom, Magic Dog, Larry etc. Seriously, this is why I like FA. Regardless of whether one agrees with certain opinions, it’s nice to read well thought out and reasonable responses.
Mata you really know how to hold your own. You’re one tough cookie!
Give me some more!
Ron
@ Larry
Larry, you are obviously a very intelligent person and I’ve read enough here to know that you’re a doctor. Didn’t President Obama say he was not going to “nationalize” healthcare?
Even Media Matters said Sean Hannity misrepresented his healthcare plan. Obama Healthcare Plan
I don’t want the government running my healthcare. I’ll drop my conservative shield for a second here and admit that Obama said a few things in his campaign that I actually liked. (shield back up for a second to say all those promises had expiration dates). He said all Americans would have a choice to have the same healthcare plan congress enjoys. I think the whole problem with our Federal Government right now is that we have two sets of laws and policies. One for us, the commoners and one for our elected officials. We have social security, they have a kick ass retirement plan, FOR LIFE. We’ll get government healthcare, they’ll have their choice of healthcare.
That my friend is not a democrat or republican problem, that is a We The People problem. That is a Government OF, BY, and FOR The People problem.
Since this post is about Spector, I’ll just say that most of the people in the House and Senate could change the initial behind their name and it wouldn’t do anything for any of us. Most of them are in it for themselves. They have no intention of living by any of the laws or policies they spew forth. As long as We The People allow them to polarize us with their rhetoric, they have us where they want us.
Ouch, I think I went to Spam. And it’s cold there.
@Aqua: Yes, I think CalCon is misrepresenting the kind of health-care that Obama proposes, which is essentially an option of very cheap basic coverage if you have none and then the right to pay for private care if you want. Higher taxes overall, which will hopefully be dampened by the focus shifting from emergency to preventive care. As a Massachusetts resident, I haven’t seen any detriment to my health-care from MassHealth, but I have a few low-income friends who would be in very dire straights and out of work if they didn’t have that safety net. By the way, CalCon, if you’re not satisfied with the government health-care
in California you can always pay for private coverage like us producers.
Getting off topic here, but you need to realize that the left doesn’t abhor torture because they “worry about terrorist rights” or “don’t have the guts to handle it” (I think it’s actually quite easy for a person to justify atrocity that is done in their name); we abhor it because it puts our troops in more danger when they’re captured and because it detracts from our overall mission as peace-keepers. Obviously a jihadi isn’t going to stop throat-slitting directly because of this, but countries will start loosening their policies on intense-interrogation if they see us doing it, and the people we’re supposed to be liberating will turn on us – and that is a long term failure much more significant than any short-term information that torture can provide us. I think you’ll agree that rape or mutilation too can result in information gain, but have detrimental long-term effects. The argument is where to draw the line, and by dumbing it down to a “my family versus some scumbag terrorist” question you’re doing a disservice to the complexity of your own position.
MataHarley … great analysis, I think this will be an interesting post to come back to in the coming months and years. I personally feel like the US will remain a global power no matter what, so I’m interested in seeing if the liberal policies I’ve been championing for actually work.
@whomever fixed my post…Thanks!! [.... my pleasure, Aqua. Mata]
@Trizzlor – tell me, when will this adherence to humane treatment under the GC bring forth fruit? American troops have been tortured in every war we’ve been in. We were by the book as far as the GC is concerned during WWII, the Korean and the Vietnam wars. Our opposition was not. So, when does this theory of yours bring forth fruit?
As for healthcare…the Congress is pushing universal healthcare. This is not what Obama promised. Prove me wrong. Under Hillarycare in the 90′s, is you sought healthcare outside the single payer program, you would go to jail. This will turn out to be the same. They can’t have “producers” with better healthcare than anyone else. So, why can’t Congress live under the same laws and policies they impose on us? Are they better than We the People? If so, isn’t that the end of government by, of and for The People?
@Aqua: @Aqua: I would say that our adherence to humane treatment is intrinsic to what makes America exceptional and has always paid dividends: in the way the world looks up to us as a nation firm in its first principles, the millions of people who seek to work here and enrich us with their talents because America is nothing like their despotic government, the role we’ve been able to play as an arbiter in global conflict because we had moral clarity on our side. Compare our standing in the world to that of China – a country that has comparable military and economic capacity but does not hold firm on human treatment – clearly what’s important is not just winning a war but how you win it. Maybe you’ve been clouded by Jihadi propaganda, but the majority of the world used to look to the United States as inspiration for a viable government founded on liberty; in fact, our perseverance as a nation through hard times was the very proof that the pursuit of freedom and the rule of law are inherent to a successful society.
I don’t mean to moralize, but to me this is like asking “when is this whole Democracy thing going to bear fruit – we’ve fought against dictatorships in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam?”.
As for health-care, I’d like to see the full proposal when it comes up, but I will say that I was glad that HillaryCare bombed and I hope the Democrats do not repeat those mistakes.
but but but, triz… I thought we were the most despised nation. This is if you listen to all the anti-American rhetoric and blame America stuff flying furiously in the media, and by our POTUS.
Don’t see that our int’l “standing” is any more desireable that that of China… with or without waterboarding, which I do not consider torture.
@MataHarley: This is a cute game.
What I see in the media is a profits-motivated approach to reporting which focuses on meaningless minutia to build sweeping narratives (the gift-giving, the teleprompter, the “Mission Accomplished” banner, the plastic turkey, to name a few) and looks to gin up controversy where there is none while avoiding tough questions that would de-stabilize their relationship with the ruling class. It can be frustrating at times, but I’d rather have a media which is adversarial with the president rather than his puppet. I’ve seen as much anti-Americanism from The National Review under Obama as I had from The Nation under Bush, and it’s equally easy to ignore.
As I mentioned above, I do feel that executive over-reach has decreased America’s standing in the world, and that Obama’s so-called “Apology Tour” was a way of acknowledging some of those mistakes. Moreover, Obama repeatedly challenged the fringe anti-Americanism in Europe as “insidious” and unfounded – so the bitter followed the sweet. Obviously I feel that America is the greatest country in the world and has the capacity to be even greater, and if it weren’t I wouldn’t be living here.
Frankly, I’m pretty surprised by this statement. Maybe I’m misreading, but are you saying that the US does not have a clear and recognized moral superiority over China because we value human rights? Do you honestly think that the average educated African or European sees our government in the same light as that of China?
I should have used my “sarcasm” button, triz. Certainly I. personally, believe that we have a clear and recognized moral superiority over China… even using waterboarding. However if you listen to the media and POTUS tripe about how much we are hated in the world, it appears we enjoy no better standing than China in their eyes. That is my point… perhaps made badly as I was trying to put together the virus update post.
@trizzlor #57 – That’s not what you said. You said:
That argument didn’t work, so you switched to:
There is no need to compare our standing in the world to that of China. While the left complains of the horrendous treatment of the Gitmo detainees, said detainees are enjoying food cooked by special chefs, with a religious overseer to make sure everything meets their strict religious diet. Those detainees that don’t act an ass have high def TV night, classes on anything from English to Oceanography.
So some of them were waterboarded. Tough. It’s not torture. You can say it is all you want, it will not change the fact that it isn’t. And the Japanese used hoses to force water up the nose of their prisoners while keeping their mouths covered. Big difference. Is our version of waterboarding unpleasant…hell yeah. Believe me, there are much more unpleasant things than waterboarding.
A bit off topic…when I first entered the Air Force, I went into ParaRescue. We spent a lot of time in the pool. I actually lost skin, we were in there so much. We would tread water forever or so it seemed. When the instructors got pissed at us or just for fun, they would make us fill our masks with water, jump up on the deck and start doing flutter kicks. Lots of flutter kicks. Try it some time and let me know how it works out for ya.
@Aqua: Okay, let’s break this down:
1. “We abhor it because it puts our troops in more danger”
.
2. “and because it detracts from our overall mission as peace-keepers.”
These are arguments that make themselves clear over time rather than in immediate events; one example is our standing in comparison to China; another is the capture by Iran of those British soldiers who then claimed on video that they were wrong – the world-wide reaction was “they were tortured and nothing they’re saying is valid”. Your response completely disregards these points, but is a nice little nutshell of the right-wing memes: (i) Deny the torture – lie about how wonderfully we treat the prisoners and how Guantanamo is a paradise – “see, they eat like kings”; (ii) Deny the severity – use isolated incidents where mild torture has been applied to US soldiers and claim that it is ineffective – “see, it’s just splashing water”; (iii) overstate the effectiveness – use classified or unsourced accounts to claim that torture is the most effective tool in the interrogators toolbox – “it’s saved lives, dammit, and that’s all that matters”. It must be fun keeping all those conflicting thoughts bouncing around in your head at once. Honest question: when did torture become a conservative principle? Or is the line between conservative and partisan much blurrier than you make it out to be? I’m a bit shocked that I still have to argue basic geo-politics concepts like “ends don’t justify the means” and “short term effectiveness does not guarantee long term success”.
And since we’re sharing stories: The Russian army has a fun ritual for graduating recruits which involves repeatedly caning the Achilles tendon while they squat; once or twice it’s an annoyance, but repeatedly it becomes excruciating (try it sometime). In an incident a few years ago, some guys got overzealous and the recruit ended up bleeding real bad and unable to walk. Unfortunately, this was New Year’s eve so the doctor was out for a few days, and the guys wanted to keep it quiet anyway. By the time he was treated he had to have his feet amputated (and his genitals, but I’ll skip that). Hooah for hazing!
@trizzlor That was actually a very good argument trizzlor. However, the Iranians were after a confession. They didn’t care if the confession was the truth. As I’ve said, there are much worse things out there than waterboarding. Being hung up by your arms for extended periods of times and beaten will almost certainly produce a confession. I’m sure waterboarding would produce a confession too.
Tell me though, what good would a confession do for US interrogators? Can you give the CIA a little credit? They aren’t trying to get a confession. They aren’t trying to openly humiliate the detainees. They are trying to get information. What good would it do to force phony information from KSM?
The fact that you compare this to what the Iranians did to the British Marines is incredible. The US isn’t doing this for propaganda purposes. We were attacked and we want to know if there will be other attacks. Also, the British Marines were uniformed soldiers. I think we can reach some middle ground here though. Since the terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, we line them up and put a bullet in the back of their skulls. Perfectly legal under the GC. If they decide to spill their guts prior to said bullet entering their gray matter, all the better for us. No more chefs, no more high quality healthcare, no more arguments from the left.
@Aqua: Aqua, I’m glad we can come to the agreement that certain extreme interrogation techniques wouldn’t be effective because they would just elicit false information. My comparison to the Iran incident was meant to demonstrate that; I’m not making an equivalence between the goals of the two acts, merely that world-wide gut reaction was that torture yielded those statements, and therefore neither Iran nor that evidence had any credibility.
As far as confessions, there have been reports that many of the torture techniques were used to extract information that supported a link between al Qaida and Iraq, here’s a taste:
This is effectively a confession. However, because these accounts are anonymous and unsourced, I give them as much credence as Cheney’s claims that torture was only used for the right reasons. Still, there is certainly the possibility that these techniques were used, in part, to achieve the kind of ends both of us believe are wrong.
Lastly, you may be surprised to find that I completely agree with your proposed treatment of terrorists. However, you make the bizzare leap that anyone imprisoned in Guantanamo is automatically a terrorist and should be treated under GC as a spy. In fact, until a prisoner is convicted of a terrorist act, he is either an accused civilian, protected under GC, or a militant POW, also protected under GC as below:
So, if you can prove using humane methods that a detainee is actually a terrorist; then immediate execution is the appropriate punishment.
Sorry to turn this into a damn lecture, but a few more points from the GC regarding spies:
These rights include, under ARTICLE 3: “(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”. Lot’s of interesting stuff from International Humanitarian Law.
As has been said many times, waterboarding is not torture and no torture was used.
key words–”an individual protected person”.
Terrorists/enemy combatants don’t qualify.
@Hard Right: Let’s repeat for the slow kids in the class:
And once you prove the detainee is a terrorist, as directed by the GC, then you can strip him of POW status. As for “an individual protected person”, ARTICLE 2 quoted above makes it pretty clear that an insurgent is a protected persons unless explicitly proven that he engaged in taking of hostages or is a mercenary. Have you even bothered to read through the conventions?
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
Why yes, I have. Thanks for asking.
The question is, have you?
Apparently not.
Not true. Sorry.
The GCs have no “innocent until proven guilty” provisions for all involved parties. Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs.
They are:
If the captives do not fit all four of those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants:
Furthermore, Protocol I states the following:
If you need to read that again, more slowly, so that you can catch up with the rest of us, we can wait.
Back with us now? Good.
The problem with your argument beginning way back in post #64 is that these captives DO NOT qualify for protections under the GCs.
You’re strutting around here like the cock o’ the walk crowing about what you think you know while denigrating anyone who says otherwise.
You should try less “damn lecture” and “slow kids” invective and more “read, comprehend, and learn”.
You’re making an idiot of yourself and you’re not even smart enough to know it.
@Aye Chihuahua: Well, on the one hand it’s nice to see you actually read the damn thing, that’s some progress. But I would suggest not omitting context when you link to the actual articles. Let’s see:
1. Your “Not true. Sorry” quote essentially summarizes what I said – civilians involved in armed conflict are considered belligerents, and, as you mentioned yourself “Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.”
2. To your statements claiming “Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs … If the captives do not fit all four of those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants”. Here’s is the beginning of the exact paragraph you link:
.
Your claim about belonging to all four categories is just an outright lie: a POW can belong to one of eight different categories; the latter of which clearly deals with the insurgents we’ve captured. Maybe you should stick to the threads about inappropriate bowing and DVDs?
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
You know, there’s nothing I like better than someone who is being deliberately and willfully obtuse.
No, here is what you said:
That simply is not true.
This issue has been specifically addressed and even the ICRC disagrees with you:
::snip::
::snip::
[That last part, the part in bold italics, should look awfully familiar to you.]
Finally:
Al Qaeda members are members of an irregular militia, thus they must meet all four requirements of Article 4, Section 2 as I noted.
Your assertion that captured insurgents fall into category 6 is patently absurd and can be dismissed with no more than a cursory examination.
Maybe this will help:
First, did the insurgents in question “spontaneously” take up arms on the approach of the enemy? No, the insurgents in question are either members of Al Qaeda who were already armed or they are civilians who had plenty of time to join in with the Iraqi military if they wanted a piece of the action lawfully.
The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were not surprise attacks. Thus, there was nothing spontaneous about the response. This distinction is important. It’s very similar to the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. One requires advance planning.
Furthermore, if you apply the definition of the word spontaneous to the response, then it’s reasonable to say that such a response would have only occurred in the days immediately surrounding the beginning of hostilities.
Only by deliberately ignoring the factors of foreknowledge of military action, and then applying the most generous coverage of the GC’s can you say that anyone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq fall into the “spontaneously” definition.
Second, did the insurgents in question have time to form themselves into regular armed units.
Yes, they did. As I said above, our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were known well in advance of the actual arrival of Coalition troops and if these individuals were truly interested in following the recognized rules of warfare then they had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Third, did the insurgents carry their arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. No, they didn’t. Quite contrary. They hid their weapons. They fought from within mosques, hospitals, schools, and other prohibited locations. They concealed themselves among civilian populations and targeted said civilians when such actions served their purposes.
Basically, once again, you’ve proven your ignorance to everyone who is reading.
All you need now is a rubber nose and a red wig.
Very nicely said Aye. Unfortunately, the truth isn’t going to work on trizzlor or the other lefties. After reading through trizzlor’s posts, it’s all about how the rest of the world perceives our actions. If we treat the detainees with kid gloves and we’re attacked again, the rest of the world will sympathize with us. The French will run frontline news stories that “We’re All Americans.” If we thwart those attacks…no sympathy. No matter what we do to get the information from terrorists, it is torture. You see, withouth the sympathy and accolades from the rest of the world, the left is lost. This was easily visible during Obama’s Apology Tour. In the end, what’s the loss of a few thousand American lives when the rest of the world sympathizes with us and our stellar treatment of the terrorists?
@Aye Chihuahua: Thanks for the FindLaw link, AC, it’s a good summary of the whole “unlawful combatant” question. I think we’re talking about different protections of the GC; specifically, I’m referring to protections from torture as this was the source of our debate. From ICRC:
From FindLaw:
And, finally, from the Body of Principles themselves:
This seems pretty clear-cut to me, but perhaps I should have been more clear what specific protections of the GC I was talking about (certainly not habeas corpus or repatriation). Am I missing something here?
My broader point is that when we capture an insurgent, we must first demonstrate that he is a spy, a mercenary, militia member, etc. Prior to this, we must assume they are civilians or belligerents. I would also argue that, even years into the Iraq war, if a person takes up arms to “defend” his home or village from incoming US forces, this is still a spontaneous act. I agree with your evidence indicating that Al Qaida is an irregular militia, however, you repeatedly assume that anyone we capture has Al Qaida or Terrorist stamped on their forehead. The fact that there prisoners in Guantanamo who were held for years without charge, and coalition officials’ own admission that 70-90 percent of captives at Abu Ghraib were caught by mistake (source, Red Cross) suggests otherwise. As I said above – once such an individual is convicted of being a spy, mercenary, etc. they lose any protection of the GC and can be executed, etc.
Triz, if I am slow then you are glacial. I’ve read the GC and they aren’t protected under it. Despite your efforts to twist it to fit your insane sense of morality, it has been explained to you in detail how wrong you are. As ususual you aren’t able to understand that which does not fit into your leftist fantasy.
@Hard Right, I like your attitude – pop into a thread, state your opinion as ground truth with no evidence whatsoever, and then skulk back into the shadows. The GC says that “enemy combatants” are protected under humanitarian law; the humanitarian law (to which we are signatories) re-iterates this by stating that “all persons under any form” are protected from torture, and defines torture to include even relatively mild interrogation such as sleep/sensory deprivation. Apparently my insane sense of morality is the belief in the supremacy clause?
I wouldn’t call your “sense of morality” insane, triz. I’d call it naive, effeminate and a politically correct sense of morality.
And why is it, BTW, that the only one the world demands follow the precious GC is the US? Hear anyone whining about any other country’s treatment?
Nope… one standard for the US, and nary a word for those who genuinely trample human rights.
The only way these human cockroaches gain any protections in the GC with their status is under Article 75. This is supported not only by legal scholars, but the ICRC. However when speaking of Art 75 rights, when you get right to it, what defines “humiliating and degrading acts”, and “mental suffering”?
How about we send ‘em all to your house, triz, so you and family can take care of these poor, abused “victims”. I’d suggest you warn those around you not to turn their backs tho. And fer heavens sake, hide the butter knives. They love the dull blades and slow sawing thru human necks.
Otherwise, if we’re going to have this quasi candy ass battle about whether pouring water, or exposure to bugs is mental “torture” – since neither are physical pain – you’ll find yourself with these scum in a US courtroom, claiming their Mickey D’s happy meal was served cold… and thereby torture.
ad nauseum…
If I have to keep listening to the self-righteous types go on about this, I still say shoot ‘em on the battlefield and be done with it.
@MataHarley: I’m interested to know more about this masculine and feminine classification of morality and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Besides, I’m not the one wetting myself because the scary Muslims are going to come to my house.
Part of me agrees with you that most of Europe has been on a high horse regarding the GWOT while basically whistling past the graveyard themselves – the USA is still, and will likely always be, the country that is most tolerant of Muslims and other minorities. But there certainly has been a lot said about countries who condone torture; if you’re hanging out with people who place the US even remotely in the same category as China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. as far as human rights, then you need to get some new friends (or enemies).
That being said, it’s doesn’t give us the right to break the law – if you don’t like a treaty then abrogate, leave the UN, etc. Both in spirit (as in Art. 75) and in explicit letter (as in the 1988 resolution) the Geneva Conventions classify many of the EITs as torture. What I don’t understand is why this is such a black & white argument for you guys: either you torture detainees or you let them roam around Hershey, PA and collect welfare, are those the only options?
Is fear, dehumanization, and faux-masculinity really the foundation for an effective policy?
It’s a typical feminine trait to embellish on pain, IMHO, triz. Such as a mom generally being more panicked than the dad with a kid who takes a fall off a bike, or a son who comes home from school with his first black eye after a fight. And most mom’s don’t like to think of their sons or daughters as boxers, ultimate fighters, etal.
That’s what I see in too many men today… an effeminate attitude towards things like waterboarding… which you equate with torture, and thereby some smug “morality”. Hang, most kids get that and more in the process of learning to swim. Dedicated athletes take more physical abuse than detainees who have been waterboarded. To watch so many wringing their hands in moral dismay over this stuff is absolutely pathetic, and quite frankly, embarrassing. Something I’d expect from my earth mommy sister, but not from men who I figure would have grown up doing what I remember boys do enroute to adulthood.
But then, I guess not all our young men or women can be the caliber of our special ops or SERE trained warriors. Maybe they [our military] just can take things in stride better than the average US citizen, used to nothing but a cushy life. You’ve not heard one of our many commenters here, who have gone thru waterboarding, whining about the pain and abuse, have you? Those who have experienced it have spoken up with what they can (without divulging more info than they should). They’ve been there, and I’d say they’ve got it all over you.
It would be interesting to get a sorority group together who indulge in hazing, and find out how they think about this stuff. How about the college students in the beer guzzling contests – in a way a self inflicted beer-boarding… LOL Think they could see their absurd double standard? Probably not for most… would get in the way of their PC programming. But I’m sure a few would.
This deserves to be on it’s own… thus the 2nd post
Apparently, I need a new POTUS.
@MataHarley: I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s a weird assumption here that the left is against torture because they’re not tough enough to stomach it. It’s odd that your definition of masculinity hinges on allowing someone else to commit violent acts for your security. It would be like arguing that someone is against capitol punishment because they think lethal injection is icky. To put it bluntly, I don’t have an ounce of pity or compassion for KSM or Zubaida and the things they were put through. Living in NYC, and still holding my breath a bit when I hear low flying planes, I actually get quite a bit of satisfaction thinking about their suffering. The difference, I think, is that I don’t go and base the actions of my government on my personal revenge fantasies. Rather, I abhor torture because it’s ineffective and because it’s an inhuman response grounded not in thought but in rage and sadism. Check the dates and places on those GC documents – a lot of these human rights regulations where established after the world looked into the abyss of the SS. Maybe you can see why I’m not impressed when we start calling people cockroaches and cheering for execution on sight.
Like I said triz, glacial. AC explained it to you and now Mata. Your interpretation of it does not impress me and only shows you are not capable of viewing anything clearly, but only thru leftist colored glasses.
And I will say it again knowing it will never sink in.
Waterboarding is not torture and we did not torture anyone.
What’s sad is I know the true motives about your view. It’s not about what’s right. It’s not for the welfare of our soldiers or America. That’s a sham. It all about you and your ego.
You demand that we be absolutely perfect. When in your eyes we fail to meet this absurd standard, you pretend we tortured captured terrorists so you can show how morally superior you are by being outraged and against it. It’s been called selfless narcissm by psychiatrists and it’s usually liberals who suffer from it. Well actually, WE suffer from it when they bash and undermine their country and force socialism down our throats–for our own good.
Your problem here. triz, is that you have a blanket visualization of torture, encompassing waterboarding, sleep deprivation, drugs, etc. Frankly, you are a pansy wuss if you consider waterboarding, or any of the others above, as torture. Meaning, your effeminate nature isn’t because you abhor violence. It’s because of what you consider violent. By gosh, my granddaughter’s tougher than you.
I have a pretty clear division in my mind on what crosses the line. In your version… it’s all meshed together under the nanny GC rules that anything that offends the detainee enough for them to complain of “mental” suffering.
Do I condone cutting off limbs, maiming, beatings etc? No. I consider *that* torture.
Perhaps if you leave behind the Disney version of “torture”, and be more concerned if we do that which our enemy does, you might find more like kind thoughts out of the rest of us. Otherwise, you should consider yourself lucky there’s some tougher nuts around than yours to watch your NYC arse.