September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Not forgotten | Main | "We've got to do more on jobs" »

Jan 18, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Account Deleted

Congress is not set up to move quickly. Why would you want it to be?

Exhibit 1.


Conservative policies and conservative ethics caused the Great Depression and you have the nerve to point to the NRA as an example of something supporting GOP denialism.

Better to try something and replace it than sit on your hands.

Account Deleted

The NRA was found unconstitutional by something called the Supreme Court, which is often referred to as the ultimate arbitrator of that thing that runs our country, The Constitution.


I know.


What was your side doing?

Ed Cone

There's a difference between a careful, deliberative process and an obstructionist culture.

It's clear, from the examples in this interview and from many other sources, that we are dealing now with the latter.

Account Deleted

You know, Corbs, I am in the second year of studying the life of Josiah Bailey. I would most likely have been a conservative Democrat if I was alive in the 1930s. I wasn't born until 1970 so I didn't get the chance.


" I read an interview that Paul Kirk did the other day -- he is Kennedy's replacement -- and he said that in his mind there is a lot of partisanship that he had not seen before."

How long has Kirk been in the Senate?

It certainly sounds to me from that interview that Hagan is waiting on her marching orders from Harry Reid and not the people of North Carolina. Otherwise she should have been able to tell you what her contingency plan is.

Account Deleted

Ed: I think your perspective is accurate, but I would add that in my opinion there is a great volume of legislation that deserves to be blocked by the structure in place.

There is heinous special interest politics at work on both sides of the aisle.

My only hope is that Sen. Hagan can represent the legacy of Sen. Bailey as opposed to the legacy of Sen. Sanford. Bailey stood for his roots and his conscience. Sen. Sanford spent his time in Washington waffling to please his party.


"The NRA was found unconstitutional by something called the Supreme Court, which is often referred to as the ultimate arbitrator of that thing that runs our country, The Constitution."

"I know. So....?"

Bubba's right, just sit back and he'll reliably make your best arguments for you. He just keeps outdoing himself.

Account Deleted

Sam: I think we all know that reconciliation is the contingency plan.


Also, I assume from Ed's statement that he would agree that trying to pass health care behind close doors and quite possibly with 51 votes would also be an affront to a "careful, deliberative process". So maybe obstructionism is necessary to prevent no debate at all.

Ed Cone

Kirk was a longtime aide to Ted Kennedy, and he also ran the DNC. He's not just speaking from the short-term perspective.

Also, the spike in blocking votes over historical norms is telling.


The relevant phrase was the question: "What was your side doing?" CP. So, for once, answer the question.

Yes, the NRA was ruled unconstitutional. I repeat, so what? FDR was trying to deal with a nation on the verge of collapse and revolution, a state of affairs for which your side bears responsbility.

Would you make such a fetish of what you think a few men thought the Constiution meant 230 years ago that you would have sacrifices our welfare and contended that Americans should have starved rather than violate your stone-tablet approach to Constitutional interpretation?

The Constitution is not a toem, nor the words of God. WE have as much right to interpret it today as did the people who wrote it.


Spag, the GOP doesn't want to debate the bill. They want to stop it. Why should we give a toss what people like you think?

McConnell said over the weekend that the bill's defeat woud be good for America. So that means he thinks more people failing to get health care is good far America; that he thinks more people dieing beause an insurance bureaucrat got a bonus for denying coverage is good for America... and on and on and on.

Your side values corporate profit over the health of your neighbors. You deserve nothing from us.

Account Deleted

@Ed:"Also, the spike in blocking votes over historical norms is telling."

Wouldn't that correlate to a rise in activist legislation?

Ed Cone

Jeff, you'd have to be more specific in your definition of "activist legislation," and compare it with the actual legislation that's being slowed to a crawl.

My guess: No, it correlates to a deliberate strategy by a party that is no stranger to activist legislation itself.


WTF? What is "activist legislation"??

If legislation wasn't about changing something, there'd be very little need for it.

Me thinks. like "judicial activism", it's just a rightie buzzphrase.


"What was your side doing?"
Like Jeff, I wasn't born then, so I'm not sure I had a side. However, most everything I've read strongly suggests that only WWII lifted us out of the depression.

You display such concern and fear for the present and future, yet all you do is rant about select evils from the past, and then only ones that you THINK support your radical ideology. Enough of this wild, fence-swinging bile. What exactly is YOUR solution to all this armaggedon that you see coming if republicans regain power? Elimination of the two-party system? A revolution? If not, then your side needs to make its best arguments and ultimately, the people will decide(you've done an abominable job here today). That's the way it's always been. Of course, if you want to reinterpret that part of the constitution....

Speaking of unanswered questions:
Corbs--"I'm not trying to "teach" or convince you or anyone else. I'm stating my positions. More to the point, I really don't want to teach you or convince you or compromise with you. I want to defeat you."

Justmore Corbs--" seek no compromise.You guys have gone from being the honorable opposition to being the enemy, plain and simple."

So let me see if I have this straight. From the morally superior mantle you laid claim to earlier in this thread, it is perfectly "honorable" for you to eschew compromise and seek only our defeat.

But if conversely we refuse to swallow all your frothy hateful spew about conservatives being a "threat to American freedom" and admit that racism is one of our core values, it is WE who are unwilling to compromise and thus become "dishonorable" enemies. Do you realize how far off the deep end you've ventured here today? Have you stopped to read your own words?


financial literacy for children?... voted on by grown-ups who have already spent what the unborn children's children have not yet earned. that's gotta be a typo...or she must have just rolled a big ol' fatty.

Account Deleted

Corbs: Could I get some credentials from you? Age? Education? Career?

It is really hard to make sense of your arguments without knowing these things about you.

Do I need to explain activist-special interest-protectionist legislation to you?


CP, you are arguing with someone who actually hates those who disagree with him. That indicates some kind of psychological disorder. It is best to ignore such individuals, kind of like everyone does to Connie Mack Jr because of his incoherent babble.


You must be rubbing your Tea Party rabbit's foot, CP.

Conservative policies and conservative ethics caused the Great Depression, and conservative CP abselves himself of responsiblity because he wasn't alive then. Explain then how conservative policies and ethics today differ from those of the 1920's?

The solution to the problems that will face us as a result of any conservative ascendancy is the elimination of conservatism as a viable political and social force.

As see it, conservatives either actually believe their way is the right way, or their just cynical liars and mouthing slogans only to sucker people into lining their pockets even more. Either way, the outcome is the same.


Jeffrey, activism doesn't equal special interest which doesn't equal protectionism. I understand the difference quite well.

Spag, I don't hate you or anyone else, I just think you are wrong, so I will thank you to spare all of us your your flyleaf psychology.


"The solution to the problems that will face us as a result of any conservative ascendancy is the elimination of conservatism as a viable political and social force."
That sounds familiar from history as well.

And the final solution for eliminating the conservative "problem" will be...?

I'm just trying to figure out HOW scared we should be of people who think like you.


EC: is it broken?

KH: oh hell no. republicans and democrats are elected at a 100% clip. incumbents are elected at a 90+% clip. laws are made where 3 branches of government and their enforcers gain power and everyone else loses power. these are not symptoms of a broken institution. something's broken but it's not the senate.


other events caused by conservatives:

Big Bang

Cooling of the Earth

Pangean separation


Destruction of Sodom

Destruction of the First Temple



Dark Ages



Global Warming

This is the short list.

David Wharton

CP: I think Corbly is a Gerd Wiesler and not an Anton Grubitz. So, be sort of scared.


"I think we all know that reconciliation is the contingency plan." -- JS

I am of the opinion that the things that could be accomplished by reconciliation and those that would fall by the wayside without 60 votes would be the better course.


>>"I'm just trying to figure out HOW scared we should be of people who think like you."

No reason for hyperbole, CP. I just want conservativsm reduced in significance to, say, the Green Party or the Socialist Party. That would do quite nicely.

i actually think conservatism carries the seeds of its own demise. Its policies, such as they are, will inevitably fail,as they have before, taking with them the comfort and security of many Americans. When people's lives are ruined by conservative policies and conservative governance -- for example, when a family loses a child or a parent because they can't afford medical treatment because conservatives don't care about them, or in another unecessary war -- then they will see it for what it is.


Since all you righties claim to be so interested in compromise, here's a partial list of things I want:

1. Single payer, in tandem with private health insurance and care.

2. The end of the legal myth that a corporation is a legal person.

3. HIgher corporate taxes.

4. New or increased taxes on stock trades and other financial transactions.

5. Carbon emission reduction.

6. An end to tax breaks for churches and other religious organizations when the size of the physical facilities exceeds a determined point. Tax payers do not need to be funding churches that can afford arena-sized worship halls.

7. Ensuring that financial institutions pay back all the money lent to them.

8. Strict regulation of the banking and financial industry, including restoration of Glass-Steagall.

9. An immigration policy that combines rational and workable border controls with earned amnesty for non-felons.

Now, please note that I haven't listed anything that would have the government buy and control means of production, so this isn't a socialist wishlist (unless you are one of the Kool-Aid addicted tea partiers, who have redefined the word for their own purposes).

So, where are you guys willing to compromise? Those are 9 things I want, and I think the list is fairly representive of the objectives of people on my side of the house. I'm willing to compromise on the methods used to get there, but not on the objectives.

Brandon Burgess

Well, Corbly, under Bush, 2.Enron was exposed, 5. Bush worked to reduce emissions by 50% over the next few decades, 9. and Bush granted amnesty to many immigrants.

What is your side doing?


Great list, Justcorbly, and well put. It would be great if "conservatives" could see their way clear to work on those issues, which strike me as fundamentally conservative and fair.

I'd add (1) ending the deeply flawed practice of state sponsored executions, (2) eliminating state-sponsored gambling, (3) opening borders to both people and trade, (4) zero tolerance for public policy grounded in religious belief.


PS I especially like your number 2. Corporations should have no legal standing whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. Of course that one would obviate the need for your number 3. No corporations, no taxes on corporations.

Account Deleted

Corbs: I'm good with 6,7 and 8.

Account Deleted

You guys talk about eliminating corporations. I know a bit about James and his background, so I can understand his perspective. But what about you Corbs, what makes you think corporations are so unnecessary?

Corporations helped my family move from the farm to the factory in the Depression and then from the factory to the tech school in the 60s. Corporations helped put an entire generation of my extended family through college for the first time. Corporations provided health care for my nuclear family.

Currently an S corp provides me with a job with which I pay a mortgage, health insurance, taxes and utilities. It provides me with income that I use to make personal decisions about consumer purchases and even donation to the Red Cross for disaster relief.

I know corporations are an "other" for some, but for me they are a very real entity that impacts my life in many positive ways.

Account Deleted

I forgot to include No. 5 from corbly's list above. That's the most important to me.

Jim Caserta

The issue of health care reform will come up in 2010 if it ends up not passing. In my limited polling of FL voters (my parents), health care reform is a big issue. If it passes, and Crist gets the (R) nomination, they'll probably vote for him. If it doesn't pass and Crist is the nom, they'll prob. vote dem. I don't see them voting for Rubio.

Generally speaking, will more or less people have private health insurance in Nov than have it today? How will uninsured voters respond to any Republican? The Republican party as a whole will own the defeat of the bill, and none will be able to get away from it.

Let's consider a test case: one candidate wants to reduce the medicare eligibility age to 60, the other wants to raise it to 70. How would votes work in that hypothetical?

If Coakley does lose, and Reps filibuster hcr, Dems like Hagan will have plenty of time to work on their plan B. There are other things going on that they can be working on.


There is a difference between ending corporate personhood (with which I agree) and ending corporations (with which I disagree). Although I've been called a "liberal" (nobody ever includes a reason why), I don't want the government determining the size at which a church building makes the church taxable and I'd rather see a consumption tax (fair tax) replace income taxes. I largely agree with the rest of justcorbly's list.

I think Americans in general are a lot more willing to see some compromises and new ideas than the parties themselves. With the deck stacked against third parties it is unlikely that a new spirit will come from the outside, but what a brilliant and momentous achievement it will be for the party that can figure out how to break free from the current binary paradigm and advance a new way.

Jim Caserta

While some of our nonprofit exemptions probably need examining, the size of a Church should not be a litmus test. There are other organizations, maybe the ones that pay Roy Williams or Urban Meyer, that might be nonprofits according to the IRS, but do a decent job filling their massive gathering places.

There are aspects of corporate law that should be examined. How do the employees of Lehman, Bear, & other bankrupted corporations keep their massive accrued salaries while the corporation is on the hook for the negative consequences of the actions that slightly earlier brought them said salary. Shareholders and bondholders should have done some due diligence as to where their money was going (in large measure to employees), but excessively lax regulation contributed too.

Politically speaking, Dems should fashion strict regulatory legislation and invite Republicans to obstruct it. Then, if it fails, put it on campaign posters and force the Republicans to own it come Nov. Not my idea, poor paraphrase from here.


>>"But what about you Corbs, what makes you think corporations are so unnecessary?"

I don't want to eliminate corporations, Jeffrey, and I did not say I did. I just want to raise their taxes, change their legal status, and improve regulation of them. Nothing in that would cause their elimination.

Large multinational corporations are essential components of the world we live in. They supply the technology that we all want. Notions that we can return to mythical days of a world whose demands are met by legions of happy village artisans are bogus, whether projected from an environmentally conscious left or a free market fetishizing right that pretends we all live in Adam Smith's pre-industrial Britain.

I suspect even the most ardent conservative would agree that large corporations wield enormous power. That power can be wielded for good or ill, and, if abused, have the same oppressive impact that conservatives fear from government.

The question, then, becomes how do we deal with corporations to control and limit the inevitable downsides, while ensuring that they continue to meet our needs and desires? How to ensure corporations exist for our benefit, not the other way around.

(I'd add a jobs creation program to my list, too. We should have had one a long time ago And it would be good politics to declare it will be funded with money returned by fees imposed on TARP recipients.)


>>"I think Americans in general are a lot more willing to see some compromises and new ideas than the parties themselves. "

I agree with that, Roch. Most Americans are much more willing to make pragmatic compromises than are partisans on either side, and I include myself in that group.

The unwillingness to compromise on either partisan side stems from the zero-sum nature of contemporary politics. Every vote is cast as a winner-takes-all event. Most media outlets contribute by portraying every contest as the apocalypse. Partisans on either side view the successful implementation of their opponents' policies as disastrous untenable. When you perceive the opposition as determined to shut you down and create havoc and great harm, there's little option but to work for their demise, also.

Frankly, I would not be surprised to see outlying challengers compete in 2012 on both sides. If a suitable candidate appears, progressives could certainly follow. It's hard to tell if the Tea Party attitude will retain some distinction from the GOP or will simply subsume it, but a challenger to the throne could easily emerge there, as well. The 2012 election, then, woud have four candidates: Obama, someone to Obama's left, the GOP candidate, and someone to that candidate's right.

Fun and games, eh?


"Although I've been called a "liberal" (nobody ever includes a reason why)"

Here's a clue in your own words:

"I largely agree with the rest of justcorbly's list."

Why is it that so many liberals deny who they are and what they stand for, or even go so far as to argue that what they stand for isn't "liberal"?


Jekyll: "Most Americans are much more willing to make pragmatic compromises than are partisans on either side, and I include myself in that group."

Hyde: "I really don't want to teach you or convince you or compromise with you. I want to defeat you."

You can't make this stuff up.


I told you CP that some of these people have psychological issues that affects their reasoning.


I dunno. Why do amerikanisch Flügelmuttern insist that everyone else conform to the absurd manichean drama playing out inside their thick crania?


To be fair, and to correct an omission of context above, what he actually said was:

"...I want to defeat you. THE NATION'S FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT."

A pragmatic, compromising stance indeed.


"Here's a clue in your own words:" -- Sam

What specifically, Sam? The points with which Jeff Sykes also agrees? The ones with which you also agree? Any substance here?

Steve Harrison

"I know corporations are an "other" for some, but for me they are a very real entity that impacts my life in many positive ways."

It's good to recognize that Jeff, but you also need to consider the following: Corporations have the access and resources to exert undue influence over public opinion and public policy, and (as I'm sure you'd agree) we shouldn't expect them to act with the "public good" as their prime motivator.

Instead of looking upon corporations as either evil or benign, we should pay close attention to their actual behavior to determine if the consequences of their actions are positive or negative.


And speaking of substance, CP and Spag, do you have anything of use to contribute? Or are you satisfied to ignore the substance of others' comments and simply troll Ed's site for the opportunity to find language on which to hang your pointless little ad hominem jibes?

As for this:

Jekyll: "Most Americans are much more willing to make pragmatic compromises than are partisans on either side, and I include myself in that group."

Hyde: "I really don't want to teach you or convince you or compromise with you. I want to defeat you."

You can't make this stuff up..

The two sentences are in perfect agreement. I'm partisan, and I am not inclined to make pragmatic compromises. Nor am I inclined to try to teach, convince or compromise with people who don't want to learn, don't want to change their minds, and don't want to compromise.


So you were putting yourself in the "partisan" group rather than "most Americans willing to make pragmatic compromises" group? It didn’t read that way to me, but I can see the ambiguity in the wording now. My bad, and my apology.

I hope you can at least see the irony in what it SOUNDED like you were saying. You started the day off in an almost conciliatory tone, raising the topic of compromise in contrast to yesterday’s institutional racism smearings and vows of uncompromising defeat of your "enemies" and their "poison", proven “dishonorable” by their own aversion to compromise. I thought maybe you had woken up on the less hostile side of the bed today. Again, my mistake for misreading, and thanks for the clarification.

The comments to this entry are closed.