Support NeoGAF

[Sibylus]

Only thing that strikes me as being weird is the venue, as though the manufacture of drones is somehow as questionable as the liberal and indiscriminate use of them (that and missions against AQ bleeding over into missions against Yemeni resistance, but that's another bucket of worms altogether).

 

[theprodigy]

That's weird. How come Evilore doesn't seem to have a problem (for the most part) dealing with that many people, HMM?

10/10, would read again

man its getting boring in here again.....

 

[WayneMorse]

uhh they really should be protesting outside the white house or pentagon.

 

[bananas]

Why's everyone so calm now?

I thought everything was going to shit? Obamacare was in freefall! Dems were going to lose the House in 2014! Everyone turning on each other! All of this just a few days ago!

Oh wait. That's right. It's was a bunch of stupid bullshit. I remember now.

 

[fallagin]

On the lighter side:



LOLOLOLOL

Huh, I wonder how math works.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why's everyone so calm now?

I thought everything was going to shit? Obamacare was in freefall! Dems were going to lose the House in 2014! Everyone turning on each other! All of this just a few days ago!

Oh wait. That's right. It's was a bunch of stupid bullshit. I remember now.

Everybody went bananas man

 

[Videoneon]

Regarding Obama's "old policy extension" announcement, from what I understand ultimately the insurance companies are the ones who decide to whether to keep the old plans going, and Obama is just giving the legal OK? I was watching the local news for a bit and was unsure if I comprehended everything properly.

That's weird. How come Evilore doesn't seem to have a problem (for the most part) dealing with that many people, HMM?

EviLore 2016. Bish for VP. New third party: The GAF Party.

Too bad my state doesn't allow for write-ins, my state is blue as fuck (except for the lamentably powerful showing from the anti same sex marriage crowd). Life is rough.

Spoiler

Incidentally, a few months ago there was an interesting editorial in the paper about Democrats breaking rank with the state platform and not being pro gay marriage--some legislators were receiving pressure from a state LGBT group as I recall and these legislators wanted to protect their policy positions

Policy ideas:

GAF gold is a little cheaper
New color themes (neon, pastel, military drab, top three to be decided by GAffers)
Animated avatars
Return of "who quoted you"

https://twitter.com/codepink/status/401416854671228928/photo/1/large

Dirty peaceniks waving signs and fomenting dissent.

They should go back to their parents' basements!!!!!!!!!

 

[Oblivion]

Why's everyone so calm now?

I dunno. This thread still seems to be pretty bananas, if you ask me.

Spoiler

Two in a row, bitches!

Spoiler

Yeah, you heard me, theprodigy.

edit:

Everybody went bananas man

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! D:

 

[StopMakingSense]

Regarding Obama's "old policy extension" announcement, from what I understand ultimately the insurance companies are the ones who decide to whether to keep the old plans going, and Obama is just giving the legal OK? I was watching the local news for a bit and was unsure if I comprehended everything properly.

More a combination decision by state insurance commissioners and insurance companies. The first has to sign off first, then the companies have to decide which ones they don't really want to cancel.

 

[zero shift]

So if one percent owns 50% of the nations wealth, how much more money would the bottom 50% or even 30% have if that money was taxed 1970s or redistributed Japan style and transferred to them?

 

[fallagin]

Just watched that "end of the road how money became worthless" on netflix and as I expected, it was basically a lengthy commercial for buying gold.

Near the end they say that they want people to buy gold, but more importantly they want people to educate themselves 'correctly'about the economy, so basically they want people to be educated to buy gold...

 

[Aylinato]

Just watched that "end of the road how money became worthless" on netflix and as I expected, it was basically a lengthy commercial for buying gold.

Near the end they say that they want people to buy gold, but more importantly they want people to educate themselves 'correctly'about the economy, so basically they want people to be educated to buy gold...

Because they make money off fools.

 

[K-19]

Only thing that strikes me as being weird is the venue, as though the manufacture of drones is somehow as questionable as the liberal and indiscriminate use of them (that and missions against AQ bleeding over into missions against Yemeni resistance, but that's another bucket of worms altogether).

The most interesting thing is Chief of Staff of the USAF Mark Welsh talking about the future use of drone in South America and Africa.

 

[Diablos]

In his West Virginia district, the TV ads attacking Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall over the calamitous startup of President Barack Obama's health care law have already begun.

The 19-term veteran, a perennial target in a GOP-shifting state, is among many in the president's party who have recited to constituents Obama's assurance that they could keep insurance coverage they liked under the 2010 overhaul. That has proved untrue for several million Americans, igniting a public uproar that has forced Obama to reverse himself on part of the law and sent many Democrats scrambling into political self-preservation mode ahead of next year's midterm elections.

On Friday, Rahall was among 39 Democrats who, despite an Obama veto threat, voted for a GOP measure that would let insurers continue selling policies to individuals that fall short of the health care law's requirements. It was approved 261-157.

"I'm concerned about my integrity with voters who have returned me here 38 years. They know me enough to know I wouldn't purposely mislead them," Rahall said this week. "They have that confidence in me, and I want them to continue to have that confidence in me."

Republicans are emboldened by Obama's reversal and the Democrats' scramble for cover. They are already compiling lists of dozens of Senate and House Democrats like Rahall who, in video clips and written statements, have parroted Obama's pledge that voters' existing coverage would not be annulled.

"There's nothing more damaging than when your word is devalued and people think they were misled," said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's campaign arm. "And especially damaging is when it actually affects you and your family. So in terms of degree of impact, this is off the Richter scale."

Top Democrats, who need to gain 17 seats to retake the House majority, scoff that next November's elections are far off. They say by then, the health care law will be to their advantage because it will be working well.

Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said his party will focus the campaign on the economy, Democratic efforts to fix it and the GOP's preference for cutting Medicare and granting tax breaks to the wealthy.

The Republican emphasis on the health care law's problems "from a partisan perspective gins up the Republican base. But it alienates independent and moderate voters," said Israel, who said those voters "are more interested in solutions."

Other Democrats agree that plenty can change in a year but concede that the issue poses problems.

Martin Frost, a former Texas Democratic congressman who headed the House Democratic campaign committee, said many people still may lose their coverage because state officials have ample power over insurers. And he said the Obama administration cannot allow additional foul-ups.

"If I were still in Congress, I'd be concerned," Frost said.

Sensing an edge, the GOP plans to cut commercials featuring Democrats' promises that people could keep their health insurance. They are already emailing press releases to reporters attacking Democrats on the issue.

"With Obamacare proving to be a total disaster — from the botched website to the broken promises — it's no surprise that Barber is now desperate to hide his support," said one GOP release distributed in the district of freshman Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz.

Politically speaking this cound be a bit of an unpredictable situation. GOPers gonna GOP, 39 (and potentially growing) Dems are spineless, other Dems shrugging it off right now.

btw, I guess I am part of the 1%! I still can't see my eligibility results. LOL.

 

[bonercop]

Politically speaking this cound be a bit of an unpredictable situation. GOPers gonna GOP, 39 (and potentially growing) Dems are spineless, other Dems shrugging it off right now.

btw, I guess I am part of the 1%! I still can't see my eligibility results. LOL.

Try it with a new account and a different email address, that might fix your issue.

 

[Diablos]

Try it with a new account and a different email address, that might fix your issue.

It punted me back to pre-enrollment status (for whatever reason) so I may try that. Before I was concerned that two identical names/SSN#'s would raise a red flag somewhere trying to enroll.

 

[Diablos]

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Friday came out strongly in support of extending long-term unemployment insurance past its current expiration date.

Top economic adviser Gene Sperling said in a statement to The Huffington Post there is "no question" that Congress should extend emergency unemployment insurance for the more than 1 million workers who could be affected when benefits expire between Christmas and the New Year.

"We have always done so when unemployment is this high and would make little sense to fail to do so now when we are still facing the burdens of the worst downturn since the Great Recession," Sperling said. "It is high bang for the buck for the economy, reduces poverty and helps workers who lost jobs due to no fault of their own get back on their feet."

Sperling's remarks, which echoed similar comments he made Thursday during The Atlantic's Washington Ideas Forum, are a message to Congress to move quickly on the issue with few legislative business days left in the year.

Budget negotiators have been meeting to try and hammer out a deal to keep the federal government running when funding expires in mid-January. And in an interview with The Washington Post, one of those members, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that an extension of unemployment benefits would be a chief request for the Democrats. But those benefits expire before any new government funding agreement is likely to be reached, making it more imperative for Congress to act on a stand-alone measure.

Since World War II, Congress has always given extra weeks of federal unemployment benefits to workers who use up the standard six months of state jobless compensation.

Reauthorizing the benefits has recently become a painful annual ritual, however, with Republicans lamenting the cost of the extension and Democrats insisting the federal government has never left workers hanging with the national unemployment rate above 7.2 percent.

Since the unemployment rate is on a trajectory to be at or even below 7.2 percent in December, renewing the benefits this year may be especially politically tricky.

But an extension of unemployment benefits into 2014 would likely cost less than the $30 billion it cost to extend them into 2013, and Sperling said that the administration would work to find offsets to make sure any agreement was deficit neutral going forward.

LOL -- extending UE benefits costs only slightly more than it did for the GOP to throw a temper tantrum and shut down the Government!

Please extend my UE bennies, Congress. Don't tie it to Obamacare or some shit either. I'm not enjoying 'gifts' by voting for Obama, I'm out of work and can't find anything decent. HALP

 

[The Librarian]

Up is going to feature an awesome crew today: Robert Costa, Sarah Kliff and Brian Beutler.

 

[empty vessel]

Actually the internet was derived from the invention of the ethernet, which was created by a private corporation:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518

Not sure if you posted this seriously, but:

"Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page reopens the ancient debate over who invented the Internet with a column Monday calling out the notion that it was the government as an 'urban legend.'

"And while I'm gratified in a sense that he cites my book about Xerox PARC, 'Dealers of Lightning,' to support his case, it's my duty to point out that he's wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Only thing that strikes me as being weird is the venue, as though the manufacture of drones is somehow as questionable as the liberal and indiscriminate use of them (that and missions against AQ bleeding over into missions against Yemeni resistance, but that's another bucket of worms altogether).

Code pink is everywhere in DC. I've seen them 5 or 6 times at least on capitol hill and I've not been in the city for very long

 

[WayneMorse]

Why's everyone so calm now?

I thought everything was going to shit? Obamacare was in freefall! Dems were going to lose the House in 2014! Everyone turning on each other! All of this just a few days ago!

Oh wait. That's right. It's was a bunch of stupid bullshit. I remember now.

The Dems are still at a serious disadvantage, there's no chance at capturing the House, governors races are slipping and Kay Hagan's batshit insane Tea Party challenger is still neck and neck with her despite the NC legislature being a national embarrassment.

We're so fucked when the employer mandate goes through in 2015 and literally millions lose their healthcare coverage and are thrown onto the exchanges they still perceive as buggy and broken.

 

[The Librarian]

The Dems are still at a serious disadvantage, there's no chance at capturing the House, governors races are slipping and Kay Hagan's batshit insane Tea Party challenger is still neck and neck with her despite the NC legislature being a national embarrassment.

lol, but seriously. You need to relax. Kay Hagan will be fine.

We're so fucked when the employer mandate goes through in 2015 and literally millions lose their healthcare coverage and are thrown onto the exchanges they still perceive as buggy and broken.

LOL

 

[speculawyer]

https://twitter.com/codepink/status/401416854671228928/photo/1/large

Dirty peaceniks waving signs and fomenting dissent.

I don't understand their tactics and I don't think they will be very successful. Listing the Kill list with a set of terrorists . . . uh yeah, most people want them dead. They want us dead, so we are just returning the favor.

And Tariq Aziz RIP? The Iraqi foreign minister? He's alive and in prison.

Seems like a really poorly thought out protest that is more likely to back-fire.


If they want to win this argument, they need to focus on the innocent victims, not the Al-Qeada that get killed. Fuck the terrorists.

 

[speculawyer]

So if one percent owns 50% of the nations wealth, how much more money would the bottom 50% or even 30% have if that money was taxed 1970s or redistributed Japan style and transferred to them?

This word 'redistributed' is quite misleading. Only a tiny fraction of people would suggest actually taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people beyond the existing welfare programs. The 'redistribution' that should occur is tax the rich more and use the money on public works projects building bridges, roads, a smart grid, green energy, energy conservation projects, etc. CREATE JOBS not just give money.

 

[speculawyer]

Only thing that strikes me as being weird is the venue, as though the manufacture of drones is somehow as questionable as the liberal and indiscriminate use of them (that and missions against AQ bleeding over into missions against Yemeni resistance, but that's another bucket of worms altogether).

That scale model of the drone does provide a nice photo op. I suspect that is the reason why.

 

[RustyNails]

Dammit why is piecake banned? I wanted some 401k advice from him

Edit: I guess I will bother Opiate

 

[Black Mamba]

Wayne is either diablos^2 or an alt account trolling him. I'm not sure which.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wayne is either diablos^2 or an alt account trolling him. I'm not sure which.

Troll

 

[RustyNails]

Wayne is either diablos^2 or an alt account trolling him. I'm not sure which.

Wayne is Diablos' inner voice

He is Gollum to Diablos' Smeagol.

 

[RustyNails]

And Tariq Aziz RIP? The Iraqi foreign minister? He's alive and in prison.

It's probably a random person who was killed in a drone strike, assuming that's what the mock gravestones besides his name are suggesting.

 

[Diablos]

We're so fucked when the employer mandate goes through in 2015 and literally millions lose their healthcare coverage and are thrown onto the exchanges they still perceive as buggy and broken.

Meh I wouldn't even worry about that right now

 

[empty vessel]

It's probably a random person who was killed in a drone strike, assuming that's what the mock gravestones besides his name are suggesting.

He was a 16-year-old Pakistani youth that we murdered.

Speculawyer doesn't understand that we are the terrorists.

 

[WayneMorse]

Elizabeth Warren: quiet revolutionary who could challenge Hillary Clinton in Democrats' 2016 race (The Guardian)

Warren/Merkley 2016!

 

[speculawyer]

He was a 16-year-old Pakistani youth that we murdered.

Speculawyer doesn't understand that we are the terrorists.

Derp derp.


Empty Vessel doesn't understand that using the name of a random victim that is the exact same as a very well-known person in the Muslim world is incredibly stupid messaging that is only going to be preaching the choir of people that obsessively follow the issue and will be misunderstood by the vast majority of the population.


Edit: Actually . . . your posting is a great example of the problems with the far-left. "We are the terrorists." No. I am not a fucking terrorist. I don't know what you do in your spare time but I don't target innocent civilians with violence for political reasons.

Now our country does participate in military actions where we try to strike down our enemies such as Al-Qeada. That is not terrorism. And yes, the operations do at times end up killing innocent civilians. But that is not our intent. However, it is horrible. And it is something that needs to be discussed and debated. And these unintentional killings may cause more problems than intentional killing of terrorists. And perhaps we should change our tactics because of that. That is a good argument to have and may result in a change of our policies.

But calling your fellow Americans terrorists? People are just going to say "Fuck you, you loony." You are just going alienate the people you are trying to persuade. It is known as the "Blame American first" problem.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Elizabeth Warren: quiet revolutionary who could challenge Hillary Clinton in Democrats' 2016 race (The Guardian)

This is exactly why the media sucks. These are stories about stories not anything real. This literally started with a rumor that the New Republic turned into a story, the next day Politico runs a story about the story as their cover piece now we get other media outlets churning out useless stories.

 

[ViperVisor]

JFK posthumously joins Republican Party now available not in Pog form but book form.

JFK Conservative will be on Book TV this weekend.

 

[RustyNails]

He was a 16-year-old Pakistani youth that we murdered.

Speculawyer doesn't understand that we are the terrorists.

Derp derp.


Empty Vessel doesn't understand that using the name of a random victim that is the exact same as a very well-known person in the Muslim world is incredibly stupid messaging that is only going to be preaching the choir of people that obsessively follow the issue and will be misunderstood by the vast majority of the population.

I fall somewhere in between..I'm ok with Drone strikes under extremely strict conditions, such as the target's priority, avoiding public area, etc. Basically the target has to be pretty freakin high in the terror cell (top 3). This is because if Pakistan or Yemen are too corrupt/destabilized to capture these folks, someone has to do the dirty work. But targeting any and every village terrorist willy nilly is wrong, and also targeting Awlaki and other US Born terrorists is also wrong.

 

[B-Dubs]

Wayne is Diablos' inner voice

He is Gollum to Diablos' Smeagol.

What is their precious?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Elizabeth Warren: quiet revolutionary who could challenge Hillary Clinton in Democrats' 2016 race (The Guardian)

Warren/Merkley 2016!

Ignoring the fact that she's old and liberal, a President Warren would be a goddamn waste of a good senator.

I love her as a Senator, her power and charisma is best left where she can make the most difference — and that’s not in the White House. That's Hillary's place, not hers.

I think at least one thing President Obama has taught many liberals is that being the president doesn’t really give you a whole lot of power. Sure, in this country the president is the one who takes the brunt of the blame because it’s a singular figure and it’s just easier to blame them. But the reality is that being the president doesn’t give you a great deal of power to create policy, let alone pass it.

The most a president can really do is threaten to use their veto power in hopes that the threat will force Congress to send legislation to their desk that they support.
But in our country, like it or not, Congress has most of the power. And Congress is where I think someone like Senator Warren can make the most difference.

While many liberals (including myself) are huge fans of Ms. Warren, she’ll never be a figure that gets real mainstream acceptance. She’s not a centrist. Which is a good thing for liberals when it comes to the Senate, just not as a president.

One of the issues I’ve always had with President Obama is I feel he needed a little more “seasoning.” He was idealistic, bold, full of bright new ideas and campaign promises — without knowing exactly what it is he was getting himself into. Don’t get me wrong, I believe he’s been an okay, sometimes good president, I just think the way in which he handled certain situations made them worse than they needed to be.

It didn’t help that Republicans weren’t going to, under any circumstances, help him achieve anything. But he continually failed to control the message and often allowed Republicans to dictate “truth” to the American people. ”Truth” which was almost always some right-wing lie.

Also, as senator, Warren can be more idealistic. She can say more of what’s on her mind. As president, like it or not, you’re forced to be a little less confrontational and must abide by a different set of rules.

I want to see Warren rise to Senate leadership. Ideally, Warren would turn the senate into a progressive movement against rampant corruption that’s taken over Wall Street and big business. I want to see her take on fools like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul year after year on the senate floor. I want to see her have the ability to stand there in the same room with these people and tell them we’re not taking their bullshit anymore — it’s time for real change.

As senator, Warren can focus on the handful of issues which she’s most passionate about. And in doing so, she stands a much better chance at bringing about real change.
Presidents just can’t do this. Sure they can be very influential, and we need the right person in the White House to help bring positive change to this country, but a president at their best is often one who has the right people behind them, with them bringing everything together.

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t strike me as that type of person. And again, that’s a good thing. Not everyone who’s a great political leader should be president. I see Warren’s best strengths as being an antagonist. She’s someone who can go blow for blow with right-wing insanity in the senate — and win.

But as president you can’t be that confrontational. You can’t be someone who’s always “shaking things up.” Presidential leadership and congressional leadership aren’t exactly the same. In fact, they’re often very different.

It’s like coaching. Some coaches make fantastic coordinators or assistant coaches, but they’re not nearly as effective as a head coach.

Now I’m sure plenty of liberals will completely disagree with what I’m saying here, and that’s fine.

I would just like to see Warren make her legacy as the senator who changed the Senate. Or at the very least moved it in a progressive direction, saying fuck you to conservative assholes who want the country to stagnate.

Who knows, maybe she'll take Harry Reid's place in some fantasy land, but god a man can dream.

 

[bonercop]

This is exactly why the media sucks. These are stories about stories not anything real. This literally started with a rumor that the New Republic turned into a story, the next day Politico runs a story about the story as their cover piece now we get other media outlets churning out useless stories.

eh, that New Republic story was making a broader point about the resurgance of a populist strain in the democratic base, which was pretty interesting. I wouldn't say it was complete garbage.

Warren probably won't run, but I do think the argument has merit and that the democratic base could be won over by someone running to hillary's left on economic issues.

Spoiler

i mean, really, does anyone here want to see another 8 years of rubinites setting fiscal policy?

 

[Wall]

Elizabeth Warren: quiet revolutionary who could challenge Hillary Clinton in Democrats' 2016 race (The Guardian)

Warren/Merkley 2016!

I really hope Warren runs. The Democrats have to actually stand for something going forward. They can't just be the "not crazy Republicans" party. Not being a crazy Republican is basically the only thing Hillary has going for her.

 

[KingK]

Do conservatives not understand that the Compromise of 1850 is not a good thing to be idolizing (Is it any wonder they can't win minority votes)? These people live in a different world were any 'compromise' is good.

George Will wrote a whole article about why we should be looking for another Compromise of 1850 in our current immigration debate. Yeah, we need to compromise with a bunch of radicals who still went to war (why this bill is often described as 'saving the nation' when all it did was postpone a war), never mind the fact that the 'compromise' keep slavery around and strengthened the Fugitive Slave Act. Real model legislation there.

These are what 'serious' republicans think. The republican party is insanely radicalized but they're still taken seriously. I don't get it.

Yeah, fuck that guy. I didn't know the Compromise of 1850 was actually considered a laudable achievement by people. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see it idolized by modern conservatives though.

I don't understand their tactics and I don't think they will be very successful. Listing the Kill list with a set of terrorists . . . uh yeah, most people want them dead. They want us dead, so we are just returning the favor.

And Tariq Aziz RIP? The Iraqi foreign minister? He's alive and in prison.

Seems like a really poorly thought out protest that is more likely to back-fire.


If they want to win this argument, they need to focus on the innocent victims, not the Al-Qeada that get killed. Fuck the terrorists.

Yeah, I think the biggest problem with the anti-drone crowd is that their message often seems to be "no drones should be used, ever." And that notion alienates people, like me, who do think that we use drone strikes way too much, that we have an extreme lack of oversight and transparency on the drone strikes, and that the "signature strikes" and labeling any adult male as an enemy combatant are disgusting.

However, I would not want the drone program eliminated completely from the military. Drones can be great tools and a great alternative to sending in live soldiers in certain situations. It's just way overused and abused right now, imo. But most people don't really know about the more controversial aspects of drone strikes (because it is under reported in the media) and instead of talking about and educating people about those, the anti-drone crowd just rails against the use of drones in general. And when all your average person really sees about drones is the "Al-Qaeda #2 killed in drone strike" headline every few months, of course they aren't going to take the protesters seriously.

 

[speculawyer]

Fucking Democrats are so spineless.

Man, it was so nice to see them finally have a spine during the government shut-down. I was kinda shocked. They actually stood their ground.

But as soon as some issues with Obamacare hit the news they've collapsed like a paper bag. Fucking man up. I just watched a Shields and Brooks piece from PBS Newshour and Mark Shields was saying "If this doesn't work the whole idea of liberal governance could be a failure." Jesus Christ. The entire rest of the modern industrialized world has some type of socialized medical program. I don't see the rest of the western industrialized world falling apart. Fucking grow a pair.

I'm not saying stick your head in the ground and ignore issues. But just stop being a bunch of panicky chickens with your heads cut off.

 

[KingK]

I really hope Warren runs. The Democrats have to actually stand for something going forward. They can't just be the "not crazy Republicans" party. Not being a crazy Republican is basically the only thing Hillary has going for her.

I don't think Warren would actually have a shot in hell at winning a general presidential election, but I would still love to see her run against Hillary in the primaries just to keep some leftward pressure on her and to help swing the conversation of the election to the left.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think Warren would actually have a shot in hell at winning a general presidential election, but I would still love to see her run against Hillary in the primaries just to keep some leftward pressure on her and to help swing the conversation of the election to the left.

Yeah, the idea of pushing the Overton window over a bit would be good. But I would not want to end up with a Warren v. Christie match-up.

 

[The Librarian]

Fucking Democrats are so spineless.

Man, it was so nice to see them finally have a spine during the government shut-down. I was kinda shocked. They actually stood their ground.

But as soon as some issues with Obamacare hit the news they've collapsed like a paper bag. Fucking man up. I just watched a Shields and Brooks piece from PBS Newshour and Mark Shields was saying "If this doesn't work the whole idea of liberal governance could be a failure." Jesus Christ. The entire rest of the modern industrialized world has some type of socialized medical program. I don't see the rest of the western industrialized world falling apart. Fucking grow a pair.

I'm not saying stick your head in the ground and ignore issues. But just stop being a bunch of panicky chickens with your heads cut off.

? The Democrats that voted for the Upton bill are the same Democrats that voted for the individual mandate delay in July.

 

[Wall]

For the sake of argument, I'm gonna try to present the alternative position to the one you laid out.

Ignoring the fact that she's old and liberal, a President Warren would be a goddamn waste of a good senator.

I love her as a Senator, her power and charisma is best left where she can make the most difference — and that’s not in the White House. That's Hillary's place, not hers.

A Senator is one person among a legislative body of 100. For years, Ted Kennedy was seen as the champion of the poor and middle class, but that didn't stop the country from shifting dramatically rightward during the time he was in the Senate. However much influence a senator manages to amass through their own personal charisma, policies, and connections, they still have to contend with the fact that they are working through a legislative body composed of many other voices. The platform that a senator commands may be large, but it pales in comparison to the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

I think at least one thing President Obama has taught many liberals is that being the president doesn’t really give you a whole lot of power. Sure, in this country the president is the one who takes the brunt of the blame because it’s a singular figure and it’s just easier to blame them. But the reality is that being the president doesn’t give you a great deal of power to create policy, let alone pass it.


The most a president can really do is threaten to use their veto power in hopes that the threat will force Congress to send legislation to their desk that they support.
But in our country, like it or not, Congress has most of the power. And Congress is where I think someone like Senator Warren can make the most difference.

I agree that controlling the legislature is more important than controlling the Presidency. However, a president has much more power than any individual legislature. The president essentially leads the party they come from. A president's decisions regarding which legislation to pursue and what that legislation should look like plays a massive role in shaping the political discourse of this country, especially when the president's party controls the legislature.

If past behavior is a guide, which it usually is, a Hillary Clinton presidency would take further financial reform off the table. A Hillary Clinton presidency also would probably look a lot like Obama's in terms of trying to achieve some sort of budgetary comprise involving cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and would probably continue the fetishizing that took shape under her husband of prioritizing balancing the budget over maintaining full employment and investing in infrastructure and education. Basically, Hillary Clinton has never in her career shown any indication that she was willing to break from the Washington consensus on any issue. A Hillary Clinton presidency in all likelihood would feature the same type of debates we have had for the past 20 years: Republicans trying to shred the safety net, gut regulatory authorities, and wage culture wars versus Democrats offering piecemeal comprises like chained CPI. An Elizabeth Warren presidency, heck even an Elizabeth Warren candidacy, would shift the terms of the debate on a number of issues ranging from financial regulation to the budget.

[

While many liberals (including myself) are huge fans of Ms. Warren, she’ll never be a figure that gets real mainstream acceptance. She’s not a centrist. Which is a good thing for liberals when it comes to the Senate, just not as a president.

Centrism is a figment of the imagination of the D.C. press corps and establishment. If you look at the polling, the American people care most of all about protecting Social security and Medicare, jobs, and the economy. Anger over Bush changing Social Security drove the Democratic takeover of congress in 2006. Anger over perceived changes to Medicare under the APA partially drove the Republican successes in 2010.

Also wildly popular are attempts to curb the outsize influence of the financial services industry in our economy and politics, as well as regulation meant to prevent a disaster like 2008 from reoccurring. Obama's reluctance to fully confront Wall Street gave the Tea Party and opening that they exploited in the 2010 elections. Finally, campaigns based on curbing rising inequality in this country also are becoming increasingly appealing to voters across the political spectrum.

An Elizabeth Warren candidacy containing an agenda focused on reigning in Wall Street, protecting popular programs like Social Security and Medicare, and combatting unemployment would be wildly popular with voters. The guardian piece as well as other articles posted over the past week allude to this fact. It shouldn't surprising either. That agenda is basically the New Deal priorities that dominated this country for 50 years and led to the greatest period of prosperity in its history.

Especially at a time when Congress's approval is at 9 percent, and the President's approval is well under 50 percent, it is tough to argue that being in any way "centrist" is an asset.

One of the issues I’ve always had with President Obama is I feel he needed a little more “seasoning.” He was idealistic, bold, full of bright new ideas and campaign promises — without knowing exactly what it is he was getting himself into. Don’t get me wrong, I believe he’s been an okay, sometimes good president, I just think the way in which he handled certain situations made them worse than they needed to be.

It didn’t help that Republicans weren’t going to, under any circumstances, help him achieve anything. But he continually failed to control the message and often allowed Republicans to dictate “truth” to the American people. ”Truth” which was almost always some right-wing lie.

I don't think President Obama was ever the starry eyed idealist that people pegged him as. He was always more of a "tone" candidate than anything. He sold himself as, and seems to labor to be, the antithesis of the culture/political wars of the 90's. I think subsequent experience shows that is impossible. He never seemed to have a strong grasp of policy to me. If he does, he often seems unwilling to communicate it with the public.

For example, even going back to the primary his attempt to distinguish himself from Hillary by not including an individual mandate in his health care plan was disingenuous to anyone who knew anything about health care policy. It isn't surprising he abandoned it, along with the public option, once he assumed office.

The fact that he has reaped absolutely zero political rewards for his attempts to be the perfect centrist should be instructive.

Also, as senator, Warren can be more idealistic. She can say more of what’s on her mind. As president, like it or not, you’re forced to be a little less confrontational and must abide by a different set of rules.

I want to see Warren rise to Senate leadership. Ideally, Warren would turn the senate into a progressive movement against rampant corruption that’s taken over Wall Street and big business. I want to see her take on fools like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul year after year on the senate floor. I want to see her have the ability to stand there in the same room with these people and tell them we’re not taking their bullshit anymore — it’s time for real change.

As senator, Warren can focus on the handful of issues which she’s most passionate about. And in doing so, she stands a much better chance at bringing about real change.
Presidents just can’t do this. Sure they can be very influential, and we need the right person in the White House to help bring positive change to this country, but a president at their best is often one who has the right people behind them, with them bringing everything together.

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t strike me as that type of person. And again, that’s a good thing. Not everyone who’s a great political leader should be president. I see Warren’s best strengths as being an antagonist. She’s someone who can go blow for blow with right-wing insanity in the senate — and win.

But as president you can’t be that confrontational. You can’t be someone who’s always “shaking things up.” Presidential leadership and congressional leadership aren’t exactly the same. In fact, they’re often very different.

It’s like coaching. Some coaches make fantastic coordinators or assistant coaches, but they’re not nearly as effective as a head coach.

Now I’m sure plenty of liberals will completely disagree with what I’m saying here, and that’s fine.

I would just like to see Warren make her legacy as the senator who changed the Senate. Or at the very least moved it in a progressive direction, saying fuck you to conservative assholes who want the country to stagnate.

Who knows, maybe she'll take Harry Reid's place in some fantasy land, but god a man can dream.

As demographics and attitudes in this country shift, I would hope that other candidates arise in the Elizabeth Warren/Sherrod Brown mode. You can already see that happening in places like New York City. What would immensely help this process is a figure with the capability of shaping the overall political debate. The figure best equipped to do that would be the President. There is enormous precedent for this in the history of this country.

For example, two of the greatest progressive presidents of the 20th century, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, made extensive use of the presidency to shape the political debate, advance their agenda, and build coalitions. JKF used the presidency similarly to advance civil rights and investments in science, technology and infrastructure. Even Reagan used it to change the terms of the political debate in this country.

I think the Obama Presidency shows that running as a centrist compromiser simply doesn't work. Hell, even Clinton ran as a "third-way" centrist figure, and like Obama he too was greeted with apocalyptic opposition. Comprise is only meaningful if it is preceded by an attempt to pass policies that are honestly considered to be correct on their own merits. Someone can only truly compromise from a position they honestly hold. Neither Clinton nor Obama ever negotiated in this manner. Clinton had the luxury of being bailed out by economic circumstances. Obama does not. Neither will whoever is President after Obama.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

? The Democrats that voted for the Upton bill are the same Democrats that voted for the individual mandate delay in July.

This.

I was pleasently surprised at the vote yesterday

 

[NYCmetsfan]

eh, that New Republic story was making a broader point about the resurgance of a populist strain in the democratic base, which was pretty interesting. I wouldn't say it was complete garbage.

Warren probably won't run, but I do think the argument has merit and that the democratic base could be won over by someone running to hillary's left on economic issues.

Spoiler

i mean, really, does anyone here want to see another 8 years of rubinites setting fiscal policy?

Oh I'm not really mad at the New Republic more so then the stuff that came after.

 

[Jimothy]

Great post, Wall.