Update 10/12/11: I thought this was a good post on this subject also.
In response, I give you the following (here)…
Here's the problem: There is no story. At the end of the day, there is only reality. Things work or they don't. When they work, people notice, and say it.Besides, “Nooners” is guilty of her own brand of storytelling, as noted here.
Would the next president like a story? Here's one. America was anxious, and feared it was losing the air of opportunity that had allowed it to be what it was—expansive, generous, future-trusting. It was losing faith in its establishments and institutions. And someone came out of that need who led—who was wise and courageous and began to turn the ship around. And we saved our country, and that way saved the world.
Here is a gem of a good point: Reagan's sepia-toned deification is due to his stupid storytelling. But his electoral success was due to the fact that after Fed created a recession to tamp down on inflation, they stimulated the hell out of the economy in advance of his reelection campaign. Reagan (like FDR and Kennedy) is remembered as successful because of the media-driven "story" of his presidency, but he was politically successful because of economic factors. That's the actual lesson Obama has been slow in grasping about the Reagan thing. (Though Obama is right that Democrats are very poor at "selling" liberalism in simple, moral language, which has more of a bearing on the success of liberal policies than it does on Democratic Party electoral success.)
HouseAha, so those zany teabaggers decided to get smart and do the bidding of their corporate puppet masters after all (And here is an update – wow, funding for a whole week? Don’t do us any favors, you meat sacks!).
Defeat of stopgap budget. Voting 195-230, the House on Wednesday defeated a bill (HR 2608) to fund federal operations through Nov. 18 and provide $3.65 billion to help communities recover from this year's earthquake, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, storms, and wildfires. The short-term budget is needed because Congress, with the new fiscal year just days away, had enacted none of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government. The bill drew opposition from 182 Democrats who did not want to cut other programs to fund disaster relief and 48 conservative Republicans who demanded deeper spending cuts.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), John Carney (D., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), and Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.).
Reversal on stopgap budget. Voting 219-203, the House on Friday reversed its vote of two days earlier (above) and passed a bill (HR 2608) to fund the entire government through Nov. 18 and provide $3.65 billion in disaster aid. The reversal occurred because 24 conservative Republicans, most aligned with the tea party, switched positions at the urging of GOP leaders.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Schwartz.
Remember this the next time you hear Repugs whine that the Democrats can never pass a budget. And by the way, I give you the following on this...
Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said: “When it comes to spending billions of dollars on two wars that are bankrupting us, the (Republicans’) concern for spending is nowhere to be found....When it comes to helping women, children, and families whose homes have been washed away, the majority has decided they just can’t help unless they get to take the money from a program that has created 39,000 jobs....”Uh, yep.
Clean-air rules delay. Voting 249-169, the House on Friday sent the Senate a bill (HR 2401) to delay until February 2013 or later the effective dates of two clean-air regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to begin phasing in next year. One is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which would limit power-plant emissions in 28 eastern, southern and central states that contribute to ground-level ozone and fine-particle pollution in other states. The other is the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology Rule, which would limit coal-and oil-fired power plants in their discharges of acid gases and toxic elements such as mercury and arsenic.Here is more on the TRAIN Act, featuring another typically repulsive, partisan vote from Mikey the Beloved (and another strange vote from “Democrat” Tim Holden).
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Schwartz.
SenateCredit goes to Dem Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio for this (here - and of course Toomey had to vote No on behalf of the “pay no price, bear no burden” bunch).
Trade adjustment assistance. Voting 69-28, the Senate on Thursday renewed Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers displaced by foreign trade at a cost of $900 million over three years. The renewal was added to a broader trade bill (HR 2832) and sent to the House for pairing with U.S. free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
A yes vote was to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).
Voting no: Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).
F-16 jets for Taiwan. On a tie vote of 48-48, the Senate on Thursday defeated an amendment to HR 2832 (above) requiring the administration to sell 66 new F-16 fighter jets to the Republic of China, or Taiwan, over objections from the People's Republic of China, or mainland China.This is an update to this vote, by the way; apparently the Obama Administration is going to bend somewhat to Chinese pressure and not sell new aircraft to Taiwan, but only to upgrade existing aircraft (probably another intelligent, adult, reasonable position that will earn Number 44 points from absolutely no one – not sure anyone out there wants to piss off the Chinese on this, which I can understand to a point).
A yes vote was to sell new F-16 jets to Taiwan.
Voting yes: Menendez and Toomey.
Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, and Lautenberg.
Republicans' budget defeat. Voting 59-36, the Senate on Friday tabled (killed) a House-passed GOP budget (HR 2608) to fund the government through Nov. 18 while providing $3.65 billion to help communities recover from natural disasters. Democratic opposition centered on the bill's using $1 billion of cuts in a popular Department of Energy loan program for the U.S. auto industry to help offset the cost of the disaster aid. A yes vote was to kill the House Republicans' stopgap budget.Wow, “No Corporate Tax” Pat actually caved – maybe he was in a hurry to get out of town (Congress was scheduled to be in recess for the whole week, though I cannot possibly imagine why - too much trouble to work for at least part of it, I guess).
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Toomey.
WASHINGTON -- When the U.S. State Department announced this week that it finally is going to designate the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist organization, it was a nonevent for most of our countrymen. That's because few Americans know how deadly the organization is. For that we can thank those at Foggy Bottom who are wedded to the naive hope of a near-term "diplomatic breakthrough" in Afghanistan. Couple that misguided belief with the Obama administration's self-deception that the radical Islamic jihad against the West ended with the demise of Osama bin Laden and it's understandable why the Haqqani network is virtually unknown. Here's the short form of why it's important.I would call that an interesting non-history lesson that leaves out the following, as reported by Mark Mazzetti, Scott Shane and Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times (here)…
When Jalaluddin Haqqani founded the criminal enterprise now known as the Haqqani network, Soviet troops were running amok in Afghanistan. Adopted by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency as a reliable ally, Haqqani's fame as a Pashtun mujahed soon rivaled that of Tajik leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. Both the ISI and the CIA believed that Haqqani was "controllable." But he wasn't.
After the Soviets withdrew in 1989 and Afghanistan descended into civil war, Massoud opposed the Taliban takeover. Haqqani, encouraged by the ISI, sided with Mullah Mohammad Omar's Taliban and became a key player in Islamabad's window on what was happening in Kabul.
A quarter-century ago, the Haqqani fighters were not the targets of C.I.A. missiles. They were the ones shooting C.I.A.-supplied missiles, the shoulder-fired Stingers that would devastate Soviet air power over Afghanistan.Another wretched legacy from The Sainted Ronnie R, for whom North was a National Security Council staff member (oh, and as I recall, he was involved in some untidy business over illegal arms sales to Iran and diversion of profits to a rebel bunch in Nicaragua too…strange how one person’s “freedom fighter” can morph into another person’s terrorist, I guess – and no, even though Tom Hanks played him in that movie, Charlie Wilson wasn’t innocent either).
Jalaluddin Haqqani was in temporary alliance with the United States against its greater adversary, the Soviet Union, just as his network today is allied with a Pakistan that sees Afghanistan as a critical buffer against its greater adversary, India. His clan’s ruthlessness and fervent Islam were seen then as marks of courage and faith on the part of men Ronald Reagan called freedom fighters.
Representative Charlie Wilson, the late Texas Democrat who made the mujahedeen his cause, called the elder Mr. Haqqani “goodness personified.”
American intelligence officers who worked directly with Mr. Haqqani had a somewhat less starry-eyed view. “He was always a wild-eyed guy,” said the former American intelligence official who worked with the Haqqanis. “But we weren’t talking about getting these guys scholarships to Harvard or M.I.T. He was the scourge of the Soviets.”
Fully knowing that they will be breaking the law and possibly leaving their churches in financial shambles, between 400 and 500 pastors will sermonize on Sunday about political candidates — even endorsing them from the pulpit. And the Internal Revenue Service will be watching.Sure it could (and nice copy editing too). And, oh by the way, as noted here…
“Pastors talk about issues that are held by the candidates,” Erik Stanley told The Daily Caller. Stanely (sic) is senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund and head of its Pulpit Initiative.
“They can choose the issues. They talk about what the Bible says about those particularly issues and based on that, they make a recommendation … about the issues the candidate holds.”
Houses of worship, like other non-profit organizations, pay no federal income tax and can promise tax deductions to their donors. In return, the IRS forbids churches from attempting to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
The Alliance Defense Fund sees this this (sic) as “government censorship” of sermons. It created Pulpit Freedom Sunday in 2008 in protest, beginning with a group of 33 pastors.
So far, the IRS has not punished any pastors for participating. But that could change as the movement gathers steam.
Over the last several weeks, Jim Garlow has taken the lead in promoting the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative," an effort to get pastors to speak out on political issues and even endorse or oppose candidates during their sermons in a direct challenge to the IRS.And speaking of “Lonesome Rhodes” Beck, this tells us the following…
Last week, Garlow and Richard Land were featured on Glenn Beck's new program to push the effort and got Beck to announce his support as he vowed to do whatever he can to promote it, get pastors signed up, and "make a big deal out of it"...
(Beck, in August 2010) announced that he would leave a church that "preach[ed] who to vote for," while discussing his 8-28 "Restoring Honor" rally. However, Beck is working with James Dobson on the formation of his "Black Robe Regiment," who, along with his organizations, has a history of trying to influence elections through churches, including advocating for pastors to endorse political candidates.So, as usual, Beck is opposed to political proselytizing, unless it’s political proselytizing he likes. Figures.
However, in the final analysis, I think we should note the following from the very end (of course) of the Daily Tucker article…
Ultimately, though, Pulpit Freedom Sunday is still a small movement that appears to represent only a small segment of U.S. clergy. A Lifeway study of 1,000 protestant pastors conducted in August revealed that 84 percent disagreed with the statement: “I believe pastors should endorse candidates for public office from the pulpit.” Fully 70 percent said they “strongly” disagreed.The only way this “movement” could “gather steam” with only 3 percent approval would be if Glenn Beck spouted off on TV about it one day and broke wind in the middle of another crying jag over it.
Another Lifeway study, conducted in October 2008, found that less than 3 percent of Protestant pastors had endorsed political candidates from the pulpit.
Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the White House fiscal commission, isn’t a fan of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan or his new feisty tone.Awww, boo-freaking-hoo, Cranky McFossil!
The decision to shield Social Security from changes “is an abrogation of leadership, a vacancy of leadership,” Simpson told POLITICO on Wednesday.
…
Simpson said he is “saddened” and “tired of watching” the president talk up bipartisanship in public while bashing Republicans at private fundraisers.
As noted here, however, Simpson has no trouble bashing Repugs in public (and rightly so, as it turns out). However, the following should be noted about the former Wyoming senator on this issue (here, by Kevin Drum)…
HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable....According to the Social Security Administration's actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years.Yep, it’s a darn shame Simpson doesn’t get it. Maybe he can call “enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg” to explain it to him (here).
"If that is the case — and I don’t think it is — then that means they put in peanuts," said Simpson. Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by "the Catfood Commission people" — a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave the president's panel that label.
Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: "If you’re telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940 — that all of them lived to be 77 — that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he’s gonna live to be 77? Hell, that’s my genre. That’s not true," said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September.
Simpson is a guy who's taken very seriously on Social Security issues inside the Beltway. He's studied it for years. And yet, as he makes clear later in the interview, he simply had no idea any of this was true. No idea. And he doesn't believe it, even though this stuff is Social Security 101.
…
(Hey listen, if you want to blame me for the bodily reference about Glenn Beck, go ahead. But Simpson said that one, not me!)
No comments:
Post a Comment