Codger on Politics

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Does anyone still read the mainstream media

Does anyone still read the mainstream media

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/bob_woodward_demands_law_ignoring_mind_controlling_presidential_leadership/

"Speaking of kinds of madness, Woodward's actual position here is insane. "

"Bob Woodward's name is synonymous with Quality Journalism, mostly because of one really good movie. The movie, based on a book that is riddled with exaggeration and misdirection, permanently established Woodward as the best shoe-leather reporter in politics, though his modern reporting style does not put too much of a strain on his Ferragamo loafers" It is amazing that anyone could write such drivel, and solon is not at risk of being thought of as synonymous with quality of any kind.

is ALEX PAREENE stupid, or what. -excuse me, I have dipped down to his level.

". (And yes the Reagan line, lol.)" Alex, you seem to be laughing at inappropriate items.

"There is nothing less important about "the sequester" than the question of whose idea it originally was. " Really, a bold face lie is unimportant?

"In 2010 he said a Hillary Clinton-Joe Biden switch was "on the table," although it was not. He suffered no professional consequences for saying made-up nonsense. Bob Woodward has lost it, let's all stop indulging him." Alex didn't lose it because he never had it, let's all stop indulging (or reading) him.

Oops, I did read it. My bad.


Sent from my iPad

The presidents mad dog attack team

The presidents mad dog attack team

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/bob_woodward_demands_law_ignoring_mind_controlling_presidential_leadership/

"Woodward's most recent Obama book also took the position that presidents "should work their will … on important matters of national business," though how one's will should be worked on a congressional opposition party led by a weak leader and unwilling even to negotiate with the president is never really explained. As Jonathan Chait points out, "use mind control to get your way" is an incredibly popular argument among centrist establishment political reporters and analysts. It is a convenient way of taking a debate where most people agree that one side has a reasonable position and the other side an unreasonable position and making it still something you can blame "both sides" for. Sure, the Republicans are both hapless and fanatical, but the president should make them not be."

The presidents position is "my way or the highway" and his compliant media backs his positions with savage attacks on those who fail to agree with him. And those attacks are personal and with an aim to annihilate the appoint. It is inconvenient to have to comply with the constitution but that is the job.

What the president needs to do to see progress is to meaningfully compromise and quit turning everything into a political attack. The republicans have some power, and the president needs to respect that. Other presidents have been able to sweet talk political opponents, so why does this one completely lack that skill?


Sent from my iPad

Monday, February 25, 2013

It's the economy stupid!

It's the economy stupid!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/zelizer-gop-risk-spending/index.html?hpt=op_t1

"While Americans have historically been hostile to government, they tend to support specific government services when asked by pollsters. So Washington's overall spending might not be popular as a concept, but Social Security and Medicare are."

A thoughtful electorate might be concerned that Obomacare is a threat to these programs.
Of course pt Barnum said, "you won't go broke underestimating the public" which is a nice way to say the public is dumb.

"When the federal government shut down in 1995-1996 because of a budget standoff between Republicans and President Clinton, the GOP faced a huge backlash when Americans were unable to access basic government services, such as obtaining a passport or visiting the national zoo."

A thoughtful public might listen to Obama's threats of withholding service and consider that he is doing it deliberately and without sufficient cause. They might resent the President's vacation schedule where each family member takes a different wide bodied jet. The democrats have been playing Lucy to the Republican Charlie Brown, and it has always worked before. With Obama's great recession, people may be a little more observant.

Of course the 4th estate has degenerated into a propaganda machine, making thoughtfulness real hard.


Sent from my iPad

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Depression anyone?

Depression anyone?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/23/the_keynesian_depression_117142.html

I find this illuminating. I knew things were bad, but this supplies the detail.

""That's just what you do now," my father said, "Every year you go and get a new car." "Wouldn't it be better," I asked as a precocious nine year-old, "if we saved our money in case a depression happened?" I will never forget my father's reply: "Son, the next depression will be completely different from the one that I knew as a boy. In that depression, virtually nobody had any money so if you had even a little, you could buy nearly anything. In the next depression, everyone will have plenty of money but it won't buy much of anything." Little did I realize, then, how prescient my father would prove to be."


Sent from my iPad

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The fall of elite intellectual ability

The fall of elite intellectual ability


"The worse, the better" is bad ethics; it also turns out to be bad economics, and, ultimately, bad for business. America's vast population of working poor can only get so poor before even Walmart is out of reach.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/apple-walmart-and-the-payroll-tax.html#ixzz2LZOCdKMh

If Walmart is the last stop before abject poverty, the worst is better than nothing, Walmart is providing a service. Why does this need to be pointed out? If the author had half a brain, this argument wouldn't have survived the first draft.


Sent from my iPad

the death of reason

the death of reason
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/scott-delivers-death-blow-to-obamacare-repeal.html

"ginned up far-fetched legal challenges, held endless votes to repeal it, and vowed not to implement" Why so "far-fetched", isn't un-constitutional a valid reason.

"Governor Rick Scott's announcement that he will enroll uninsured Floridians in Medicaid appears to be a real death blow, the moment the cyborg's head is crushed in a steel press." Why the violent imagery? Can't we all just get along?

"The wealthy owner of a vast hospital chain that paid massive fines for overbilling Medicare during his tenure, Scott bankrolled an anti-reform lobby, then ran and won in 2010 on a platform of obsessive opposition to Obamacare." We appear to be having a mixed image here. Either you are a craven exploiter or an obsessive, but not both.

"We are not about to enter a new era of peace and health-care love. The death struggle between liberals fighting to make health insurance a basic right and conservatives fighting to prevent that is over." That is it. Completely devoid of reasoned argument. How is Obama care making healthcare a basic right when it is destroying the health care system? This is an F paper, please find something in which you can contribute, this isn't it.


Sent from my iPad

Salvaging the republic

Salvaging the republic
Returning the government to the people.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/

I find this analysis compelling. I flatter myself in thinking I have had similar thoughts.

"It is impossible to overstate the importance of American education's centralization, intellectual homogenization and partisanship in the formation of the ruling class' leadership. Many have noted the increasing stratification of American society and that, unlike in decades past, entry into its top levels now depends largely on graduation from elite universities. As Charles Murray has noted, their graduates tend to marry one another, perpetuating what they like to call a "meritocracy." But this is rule not by the meritorious, rather by the merely credentialed – because the credentials are suspect. As Ron Unz has shown, nowadays entry into the ivied gateways to power is by co-option, not merit. Moreover, the amount of study required at these universities leaves their products with more pretense than knowledge or skill. The results of their management– debt, decreased household net worth, increased social strife – show that America has been practicing negative selection of elites."

Obama represents the culmination of this trend. University, bad, Junior college good.

"Thus by the turn of the twenty first century America had a bona fide ruling class that transcends government and sees itself at once as distinct from the rest of society – and as the only element thereof that may act on its behalf. It rules – to use New York Times columnist David Brooks' characterization of Barack Obama – "as a visitor from a morally superior civilization.""

"The Republican Party never fully adapted itself to the fact that modern big government is an interest group in and of itself"

"By the late 1930s, being out of power had begun to make the Republicans the default refuge of voters who did not like what the new, big government was doing. Some Republican leaders – the Taft wing of the Party – adopted this role. The Rockefeller wing did not. "

"Thus it gradually cut itself off from the only root of the power by which it might gain that role. Thus the Republicans proved to be "the stupid party.""

"Yet the question: "who or what does the Republican Party represent" continued to sharpen because the Reagan interlude was brief, because it never transformed the Party, and hence because the Bush (pere et fils) dynasty plus Congressional leadership (Newt Gingrich was a rebel against it and treated a such) behaved increasingly indistinguishably from Democrats. Government grew more rapidly under these Republican Administrations than under Democratic ones."
"In sum, the closer one gets to the Republican Party's voters, the more the Party looks like Goldwater and Reagan. The closer one gets to its top, the more it looks like the ghost of Rockefeller. Consider 2012: the party chose for President someone preferred by only one fourth of its voters – Mitt Romney, whose first youthful venture in politics had been to take part in the political blackballing of Barry Goldwater."

"But the Republican leadership has proved stupid enough to deal with the contempt as the Pharisee in the Temple dealt with sin: "I thank thee Lord that I am not like other Republicans…""

"Republican leadership finds itself in a position analogous to that of Episcopal bishops: They own an august label and increasingly empty churches because they have been chasing off the faithful priests and congregations."

"Today the majority of Republican congressmen plus a minority of senators – dissidents from the Party but solid with their voters – are the natural core of a new party."

"the internet helps undermine the ruling class' near-homogenization of American intellectual life"

"The internet also spread the power to organize. "

"Those on the electronic distribution list of the "Club for Growth," for example"

"the Party Establishment. It was shocked when candidates won Republican primaries by aligning themselves with such groups, against the Party itself."

"By 2013 it was less meaningful to ask what the leadership would do with the dissidents than what the dissidents would do with the leadership. The answer seemed to be: increasingly to ignore it"

"The New York Times reported a concerted effort by the Party's biggest donors led by longtime Bush staffer Karl Rove (yes, the Rockefeller wing) to support Establishment candidates in the primary process."

"That is the natural path to the dissidents forming a new party while Republican leadership dissolves into the Democratic party. In sum, the value of the label "Republican" is problematic."

"All this illustrates the need for, and the meaning of, a political party: disparate elements acting all of one and one for all."

I disagree with the concept of forming a new political party. The time between formation and viability is too long. It would be better to coop the current Republican leadership though continued challenge in the primaries. As to the donors, as was said about the tea party, where are they going to go. When the train leaves the station they will want to be abroad. Therefore the answer is continue purging the RINOs, and take over the Republican Party. There is a good start in the strength in the states. Let's make the "safe" districts unsafe for RINOs.

It is also important that no new batch of leaders become a new ruling class. A fundamental diminishing of the Federal government and a limitation of its powers is required.





Sent from my iPad

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Beloved Leader's propaganda machine

Beloved Leader's propaganda machine

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A22E8106-D4AF-436E-84DB-77354D107AA4

"The people you need to participate in the process are not always the people hitting 'refresh' on news websites," said Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign's traveling press secretary, who last week was appointed the State Department spokeswoman. "The goal is not to satisfy the requester, but doing what is necessary to get into people's homes and communicate your agenda to the American people."

And they ly continually and blatantly.


Sent from my iPad

Sunday, February 17, 2013

more klugmanisms

more klugmanisms

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/obamas-lbj-moment-the-war-on-inequality-is-the-new-war-on-poverty/273165/#


"At the same time, Republican orthodoxy is wrong. Slashing the size of government will not magically solve our problems. Novel policies that move beyond 1960s liberalism and 1980s conservatism are needed."

What we need is smarter government. the smaller the government the more likely that it will act smartly. or any problem where the market can work, it is smarter than any government. That is because the market weeds out solutions that don't work. Therefore, the comment is wrong.


"For here we are, more than five years into the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, and one of our two great political parties has seen its economic doctrine crash and burn twice: first in the run-up to crisis, then again in the aftermath. Yet that party has learned nothing; it apparently believes that all will be well if it just keeps repeating the old slogans, but louder."

Here we have agreement, it is just that the party in error is the Dems.


Sent from my iPad

Friday, February 15, 2013

Krugman is full of s!?!

Krugman is full of s!?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/krugman-rubio-and-the-zombies.html?_r=0

"Instead of learning from this experience, however, many on the right have chosen to rewrite history. Back then, they thought things were great, and their only complaint was that the government was getting in the way of even more mortgage lending; now they claim that government policies, somehow dictated by liberals even though the G.O.P. controlled both Congress and the White House, were promoting excessive borrowing and causing all the problems."

I was aware at the time of the conservative reservations about the mortgage problems caused by the democrats. They were requiring the banks to make loans to people they would not have otherwise. The source of the regulations were Democrat initiatives

"But the zombie keeps shambling on — and here's Mr. Rubio Tuesday night: "This idea — that our problems were caused by a government that was too small — it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies." Yep, it's the full zombie."

Notice, there is no disagreement expressed, only a vague slander. Wouldn't it be easy to describe just what was needed to prevent the problem? Dod Frank, names Democrats does it not?

The National Homeownership Strategy (NHS) may have been the most comprehensive, pervasive, impactful and transformational public policy initiative in U.S. history. Yet only a small percentage of Americans have ever heard of it. Even fewer understand the NHS' stated goal of record homeownership or are able to confirm whether those objectives were met.

Results from a recent AMD.com survey confirm this unfamiliarity: Link to Survey Results

The NHS was a massive, complex, coordinated undertaking.

The public policy initiative consisted of 100 distinct action items detailed within "The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream" released by HUD in May 1995. Specific examples of these action items include the following subject titles:

Action 11: Removing Barriers to Mortgage Financing for Starter Homes
Action 29: Alternative Approaches to Homebuying Transactions
Action 35: Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility
Action 36: Subsidies to Reduce Downpayment and Mortgage Costs
Action 44: Flexible Mortgage Underwriting Criteria
Action 45: Public-Private Leveraging for Affordable Home Financing

The NHS' integrated effort included alliances with influential public, private and non-profit entities. At the time of publication in 1995 there were 56 "National Partnerships" including the American Bankers Association, Appraisal Institute, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank System, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Real Estate Brokers, National Foundation of Consumer Credit, National Urban League and HUD.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It's clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame."

So more government, whether dem or R, is bad. All zombies agree.






Sent from my iPad

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Obama: A ledgend in his own Mind

Obama: A ledgend in his own Mind


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2013/02/obama_s_sotu_the_president_dares_republicans_to_oppose_his_grand_plans.html

He says the raised minimum wage will raise workers out of poverty? Is there any evidence to support this ( other than conventional wisdom)? With all the disincentives in Obomacare, more likely all those below minimum wage jobs will be lost.




Sent from my iPad

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

the rap on Maureen Dowd

the rap on Maureen Dowd

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/dowd-the-rap-on-rubio.html


"The ubiquitous 41-year-old — who's on the cover of Time as "The Republican Savior" — looked as if he needed some saving himself Tuesday night as he delivered the party's response to the State of the Union address in English (and Spanish). He seemed parched, shaky and sweaty, rubbing his face and at one point lunging off-camera to grab a bottle of water. He needed some of the swagger reflected on the Spotify playlist he recently released, featuring Tupac's "Changes," as well as Flo Rida, Pitbull, The Sugar Hill Gang, Kanye, Big Sean, devoted Obama supporters Jay-Z and Will.I.Am, and a Foster the People song about "a cowboy kid" who finds a gun in his dad's closet and goes after "all the other kids with the pumped up kicks.""

And this is the sum total of her comment on Marco Rubio's answer to the state of the union. rap? what does that have to do with anything.

Maureen is the type of women for whom the vote should not have ben extended. Her Democrat approved racism considers hispanics who are conservative to be traitors to their race, and escapees from the Democrat plantation.

She shows her inherent lack of curiosity. Rubio had many ideas in his presentation to contrast with those of the President, why doesn't she argue against those ideas rather than dismiss the speech? Could it be she c an't handle ideas?

If people were critical of maureen's appearance, she would be the first to dismiss the comment. Marleen, you are dismissed.


Sent from my iPad

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

The divide between Conscience Conservatives and Cotton Conservatives is growing rapidly.

The divide between Conscience Conservatives and Cotton Conservatives is growing rapidly.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/05/karl-rove-and-the-cotton-conse/print

Cotton Conservatives: from "• "Cotton Whigs" — The popular label applied to those Whigs who were not necessarily slavery supporters but were willing to make accommodations with both slavery itself as well as the idea of extending slavery into the territories and new states. The "cotton" in "Cotton Whigs" was symbolic of the fact that slaves were used to pick cotton — and that some Northern Whigs in the cotton textile manufacturing business made money off the backs of slaves in the South."


It would be useful to watch the individuals Karl Rove backs as a counter indication for conservative support. The people that tanked the likes of Sara Palin need to be identifies and removed from the paid campaigns staff of all conserve
candidates.

"What Mr. Rove is proposing here is to turn over the Lincoln-Reagan legacy to Establishment Republicans — Cotton Conservatives — who love to pay lip service to Ronald Reagan while quietly working against the conservative principles Reagan so boldly stood for. Principles that won election victories no Republican since has come close to matching."

Also in need of watching are thee contributors to the Rove organization. They may need to be reasoned with.


Sent from my iPad

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

The sure path to world war- appeasement, and weakness

The sure path to world war- appeasement, and weakness
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-winter-of-the-neocons-discontent-20130204

"Like Richard III, the hawks fear that Obama, Hagel, and Brennan will make all the wars go away"
I can't speak for others but I don't want war, and the author knows that. This is a baseless slander, and straw-man argument. Please address what it is that makes anyone think the blunder in chief can do anything correctly. As all progressive action, intent may be there but ability is not. An assistant blunder who has no backbone to keep the President from continuing blundering in to the war cause by unintended consequences, Hagel is not up to the job.

"And yet, as I have written, Hagel's policy views are invariably well-thought-out, and he himself qualifies as quite a profile in courage when it comes to the anti-Iraq war side of history. Obama's famous dismissal of the Iraq invasion as a "dumb" war, and Hagel's distinguished record of defiance toward his own party to oppose the war, amount to a living refutation of McCain's and Kristol's entire worldview. A decade ago, McCain and Kristol were leading hawks who claimed that Saddam Hussein had connections with al-Qaida and that weapons of mass destruction would certainly be found, and that George W. Bush could do it all and still preside over a strong economy."

"well thought out" must be 'New Speak', it certainly isn't reality. Could it be that anyone who parrots the Progressive line is thoughtful in spite of the blundering path it is used to get there?


Sent from my iPad

Monday, February 04, 2013

On getting along with President Obama

On getting along with President Obama


Proverbs 8:13 NIV
To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

To the extent that the President fails to honor the words and spirit of the constitution, he must be opposed.





Sent from my iPad

Saturday, February 02, 2013

A contrast in arguments

A contrast in arguments

Presidents weekly Message
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/02/obama_weekly_address_a_balanced_approach_to_growing_the_economy_in_2013.html

"2013 can be a year of solid growth, more jobs, and higher wages. But that will only happen if we put a stop to self-inflicted wounds in Washington. Everyone in Washington needs to focus not on politics but on what's right for the country; on what's right for you and your families." A lame replay of the stump speech. Move along, there is nothing new here.

The republican Weekly Message (not a response)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/02/rep_susan_brooks_gives_gop_weekly_address_pass_a_budget_or_you_dont_get_paid.html
"It's time for the president and Senate Democrats to produce a serious budget and join us in tackling our nation's spending problem."

I enjoyed Susan Brook's weekly message. In contrast to the President's, It was truly speaking truth to power. Mrs. Brooks is a freshman congressman as apposed to the most powerful person in the executive branch- and she didn't mention his name!

She addressed the delinquents in the Senate with a straight forward proposal: do your job, or don't get paid.


Sent from my iPad