February 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    

« Talk amongst yourselves | Main | IFYI »

Sep 20, 2012


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

David Hoggard

From the article: "Pawlenty will play a major role in the industry's efforts to make the new Dodd-Frank rules, which Congress passed in 2010 in response to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, more favorable for Wall Street as regulators implement the law."

From Romney's statement, also in the article: "I congratulate him on his new position and wish him every success in carrying out his new mission."

So, Ed, the answer is: "all of the above".


It tells me that Pawlenty decided there won't be a Romney cabinet for him to be in.


Thanks for digging that out, DH.

I'm not going to be able to read that at the moment, but it's informative to know that likely more of the same is coming - more of a squeeze. Wonder if there is going to be a tipping point in the next 4 years ?


Tells me that the Wall St. fat cats would not be shelling out mega bucks for Pawlenty if they didn't think they'd have a republican administration next year.

David Wharton

Which is worse, I wonder -- having a campaign adviser become a Wall Street lobbyist, or having a Wall Street lobbyist become a campaign adviser?

Bill Yaner

The significance of this story to me is that the Republican Party doesn't even try to fake it any more. To be fair, though, that sheep's clothing can get pretty hot in there.


The democrats do the exact same thing. In many respects there are no differences between the two parties.

formerly gt

yeah. this is the news of the day. Not Obama being grilled on univision. Not the fact that the admin finally admitted that the attacks in libya are terrorist attacks, but is still denying they were planned. not that the admin is running ads on pakistani tv apologizing for the film.

out of everything that occurred today, tim pawlenty stepping down from the romney campaign is what piques the interest of those living in the bizarro world.

Bill Yaner

Actually, Formerly gt, I heard a lot today about all those other stories you cite. Turn on a radio or TV. Read a newspaper.

By the way, if you were formerly gt, who are you today?

formerly gt

I heard an interview earlier this week on Fresh Air with an Iraqi journalist covering the Syrian Civil War. He was also featured on a frontline documentary.

anyway, like many, many others he made the point that the recent protests are not really about the film the "Innocence of Muslims" and that the radicals are using it as an excuse to stoke the fires. by now this is as self-evident as the fact the attack on the libyan embassy was a terrorist attack.

yet the US govt continues to insist otherwise. they repeatedly cite the film as the cause of violence and are actually running ads on pakistani tv apologizing for the film. so, why is the admin doing this?

are they so incompetent that they don't see the situation for what it is? do they think condemning the film will persuade muslims to suddenly embrace the west? are they trying to deflect attention from the fact that the drone attacks and the killing of bin laden have angered radicals as much as gitmo and water boarding?

i have no idea. but watching their charade is surreal. and it is arguable that by continually referencing the film they are aggravating the situation and inspiring more violence.

you really want 4 more years of this?


Sebelius violates the Hatch Act - twice, and gets no consequences. No comment. (Imagine if Alberto Gonzalez had done this).

White House knew of terrorist warnings before attacks. No comment. (Imagine if this happened under Bush following 9/11).

White House continues to blame a 12 minute video for attacks despite the volume of evidence that this was an organized terror attack - which means the WH is spinning the story. No comment.

Redistribution? No comment.

Mitt Romney and the 47% - now there's a real story. Should be worth at least two posts.

Lobbyist joins White House ? (Under what administration? If it's Bush, then definitely worth lamenting. Obama? No comment.)


"anyway, like many, many others he made the point that the recent protests are not really about the film the "Innocence of Muslims" and that the radicals are using it as an excuse to stoke the fires. by now this is as self-evident as the fact the attack on the libyan embassy was a terrorist attack.

yet the US govt continues to insist otherwise." -- gt

Let's parse what GT wrote and compare to the facts:

1. Radicals use the film as an excuse to stoke violence.
2. The attack on the "embassy" (sic) was a terrorist attack.
3. The govt. insists otherwise.

The government insists otherwise?

Back in reality land:

1. "President Barack Obama said Thursday that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans." -- Associated Press
2. "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

Think, please.


spag, you know you can find all those discussions at foxnews.com; not sure why you're opining to be editor-in-chief at edcone.com.

Andrew Brod

"are they trying to deflect attention from the fact that the drone attacks and the killing of bin laden have angered radicals as much as gitmo and water boarding?"

Wow. I knew the Right would to try to deny Obama credit for killing Osama bin Laden, but I didn't expect it to hint that it created more problems than it was worth.

Andrew Brod

Sean, maybe if Spag had his own blog, he could cover all the issues he feels need to be covered.

formerly gt

Thanks Roch. I missed Obama's comment.

I'm glad that after 10 days they're finally admitting the attacks were not about the film. The next step is for them to admit it was pre-planned and to address the fact that the admin ignored warnings.

I guess the admin "jumped the gun" with the earlier statements that the protests were because of the film. Right?

Think please.

and Andrew,

As for denying Obama credit. No. Obama killed bin laden and he deserves credit for that.

but the drone attacks, and perhaps his incessant celebration of bin laden's death, have caused as much outrage as abu ghraib and gitmo. only it's okay now.

Andrew Brod

"Incessant celebration": You're obviously on drugs.

As for the underlying claim, it must be a long-simmering "outrage" you've identified. Abu Ghraib enraged the Arab Street immediately. But killing Osama? Apparently the outrage over that went into hiding for a year and a half, only to come out right after an inflammatory anti-Muslim film became big news in the Muslim world. Yeah, I'm sure it was the Osama thing.


as bad as the collateral damage has been in drone attacks, it's a spot on the butt of a flea compared to iraq. again, not saying < 100% on target kills should be accepted, but please stop comparing the two.

andrew, of course we all know spag has a blog, and, of course, none of us visit. he probably doesn't have any real unique numbers either... think of him here as a frustrated open mike performer busting through security in an arena and grabbing the mic from jerry garcia. that takes the edge off for me. :-)

don't let that analogy go to your head, ed.

formerly gt

"as bad as the collateral damage has been in drone attacks, it's a spot on the butt of a flea compared to iraq... but please stop comparing the two."

only i didn't compare the two. you did.

formerly gt

""Incessant celebration": You're obviously on drugs."

personal attacks. nice.

and, obviously you didn't watch the dem convention. don't blame you though. it was hard to stomach.

Andrew Brod

Okay, maybe you're not on drugs. But you sure don't know what "incessant" means.


Jerry Garcia had security? Who knew?

Ed Cone

Michele, not sure if it was formal security or just an imposing and protective roadie but when I inadvertently pissed off Phil Lesh before a show in California a million years ago I was made to feel insecure myself. So, yes.


That just totally destroyed my image of hippies. Dang.


i forgot, abu ghraib was a prison in disneyworld. my bad.


So we learn that Romney paid almost 2 million in taxes and gave over 4 million to charity. What a greedy, and out of touch asshole. Maybe next year he will pay his fair share.

Andrew Brod

Actually, we learned that someone told us that. Not quite the same thing.

David Wharton

AB, that's exactly what my uncle told me last week about Obama's birth certificate!

Andrew Brod

Except that we've seen the certificate. If your uncle had said that a couple of years ago when Obama was relying on Hawaii officials to vouch for him, that'd be a fair comparison. But not now.

CP(Worst Person on the Internet)

"Romney and his wife, Ann, donated $4.02 million to charity in 2011, nearly 30 percent of their income, helping to reduce their tax obligation, the campaign said."

In other words, he paid no more taxes than he was required ( I'm sure there are SO many people who do otherwise) and gave away 30 % of his income, and didn't care to share that with everybody. Isn't that speshial? Can't wait for the spin cycle to follow.

Andrew Brod

I don't think anyone said that charitable giving is a bad thing. So rein in that strawman, cowboy. Moreover, the discussion here from the beginning hasn't been about Romney's personal morality, but about the policy morality of the tax system.

If I read the trustee's comments correctly, Romney deducted less than 100% of his charitable giving in 2011 precisely in order to move his effective tax rate up over 13%. Presumably, if he'd claimed all of his giving, his tax rate would have fallen below the rate he claimed it never fell below. That doesn't make Romney a bad person, but it does reveal a pretty calculating guy. If I have this right, he paid more in taxes than he had to in order to get the political "optics" right.

And that also doesn't make him a "scumbag."


The problem with that CP is that Romney should have given that $4.02 million to the government because they surely would have spent it more wisely.

What percentage of income did Obama and Biden give to charity? Nobody will ask because now that the numbers are out and they don't fit the narrative, the press will let this tax issue quietly die- as will the local liberals who operate and frequent this blog.

CP(Worst Person on the Internet)

....I mean, that's already started....

CP(Worst Person on the Internet)

@ Sam: When all else fails (which is quite often,...)"Strawman! Strawman!". You can tell by the frequency with which certain folks use it. Wake me up when you can't predict them anymore.


Oh wait... we do have information on Obama's charitable contributions.

That Obama sure is greedy with his money.

CP(Worst Person on the Internet)

Strawman! Strawman!


"Strawman! Strawman!"

You seem to have this belief that "straw man" is some kind of empty taunt, like doodoo head, or something. It's not. It is a type of logic fallacy — a demonstrable failure in thinking. You should look it up. That you are accurately called on it so often is bad enough, when you dismiss it without the slightest indication that you understand why your arguments are garbage, just makes you seem like an intellectual featherweight.

CP(Worst person on the internet)

...and you Sir!, embrace it as an all-purpose crutch and security blanket to stop you short of any logical traps into which your own argument might lead you, absolving you from trying to move past or around it to continue to participate in the broader discussion. Along with your baseless denigration of anyone's intellect who would challenge your omniscience(see above), it is your trademark mantra and shield for maintaining your self-superiority and monopoly on "objective reality" without ever having to prove it to anyone else.

Did I misspell anything?


"absolving you from trying to move past or around it to continue to participate in the broader discussion."

And that's the whole point. You prefer that people just meet you at you conclusion without following on a logical path to it. I don't. So yes, I decline to waste time in "broader" discussions about unsound notions masquerading as legitimate.


CP, Brod misused the term strawman here but it is right up there with "false equivalence" in the Left-wing greatest hits. Other than that, you would be wise to ignore what the Roch is cooking. It's not worth it. They say that no man is an island. They were wrong.

CP(Worst person on the internet)

Also, nonsequitur, nonstarter, "You're just wrong", "Deal in reality" etc. Sure saves a lot of mental energy, doesn't it? I think we should all just sit around and not exchange ideas under the default assumption that we are right from the beginning and that everything else is wrong. Then any disagreement can be labelled with one of those nice little dismissive phrases rather than requiring one those long, brain-straining elaborate rebuttals you and Poli traffic in. It sure would be a lot quieter, and we could all preserve for ourselves the legends of our own minds, unblemished, just as Roch, that self-crowned "fervent supporter of diversity of opinion" has.


False equivalence is another kind of logic failure. It works like this:

A is a set of C & D.

B is a set of C & E.

Since A & B both have C, A & B are the same. (And in Sam's deployment, "So A & B are the same and liberals are hypocrites for reacting differently to A then to B.")

If my attempts at persuasion consistently faltered because of these kinds of fallacies, I might stop resorting to them instead of just insulting the people who notice. But that's me.


So D and R are walking down opposite sides of the street. Both step in a pile of dogshit. According to liberal false equivalence theory, it is useless to compare shoes because D stepped in dogshit left by a Golden Retriever and R stepped in dogshit left by a Dalmatian. Because they aren't exactly the same, the liberal can attempt to avoid being held to the same standard by deploying the "false equivalence " device.

formerly gt

yeah spag. and at ed's site, a discussion breaks out about the incident.

andrew argues that you're wrong about the breeds because he has data that show goldens never crap on the street.

roch argues that you can't claim it's dog crap because no one has a photo of a dog crapping. and besides, everyone knows it's "dog shit" not "dogshit".

the wannabees chime in that it's just like r's to let their dogs crap on the sidewalk and we need a new city ordinance

spag and cp say, "weren't we comparing the shoes?"

ed posts "home. dog is glad to see me"


You guys make it hard to disagree with Rick Santorum.

Andrew Brod

Let's ignore what those yucky liberals think. As it happens, Romney himself believes that he isn't qualified to be president.

Romney's trustee claimed today that "The Romneys' generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."

Romney in July: "I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."


The tax code requires people to take deductions? Is there a penalty (or in Supreme Court parlance a "tax" on the tax) if you don't?

So Romney pays more than his "fair share", and Andrew complains. He gives twice as much to charity as Obama and probably ten times as much as Biden, and liberals still complain.

There is no philosophy here, only partisan politics. That is always the case here despite the constant attempts to keep it hidden. That's why the target keeps getting moved and "false equivalence" and other such devices to avoid a substantive discussion are deployed when it's time to reconcile facts with philosophy.

@GT: sorry for the shitty example.

Andrew Brod

Scratch that. I'll bet Romney will reverse his curious donation to the federal Treasury after the election, by filing an amended return to get the excess taxes refunded back to him. He's no dummy. He said he should "pay only what the tax code requires," and I'm sure that's how it'll eventually come out. So scratch what I said about him disqualifying himself by paying too much in taxes.

Andrew Brod

I'm not complaining, just observing. Calm down. I don't think it's a problem for Romney to overpay in taxes.

Who said it was a problem? Romney did.

Andrew Brod

On a superficial level, I'm not surprised that conservatives are exasperated by day in which Romney is being criticized by liberals for paying too little in taxes and also for paying too much. It seems unfair.

But who put Romney in this awkward position? Romney did.

The comments to this entry are closed.