"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm confused how one can argue Bush was a genuine politician whereas Obama is a run of the mill politician with corporation strings. You'd be hard pressed to argue how Bush was less corporate owned considering his war against all regulation, letting oil companies write his energy bill, war contracts, and of course letting Wall Street run a train on the tax payers' asses.

So your argument that Bush isn't genuine is that he not only campaigned for but then enacted all of these items, as per his personal convictions, political platform and socioeconomic placement?

Bush was pretty much the real deal. A bible-thumping, supply side-lovin' neocon and - gasp! - he did all the things you'd expect a bible-thumping, supply side-lovin' neocon to do! Doesn't mean they were great, but none of them were a surprise. Certainly not by his second term.

Bush was a guy that stood by his political ideals, right or wrong, and rammed legislation down our system to get what he wanted. Compromise be damned. It's not like we voted Bush into office and he began to pander to the left for poll numbers, or push centrist garbage to try and get re-elected. Bush thought he was doing God's work, so he did God's work and if it was God's plan, he would be re-elected. Thankfully, he had Jesus and Karl Rove.

Being genuine does not mean not pandering to the rich - many of which are his friends mind you! It just meant he held true to his values, good or bad.

... The health care bill is garbage. The fact that it passed and will have to be corrected is not a rousing endorsement for Obama. And like I said, if you're going to buy the line of thought that he got the best from a bad Congressional situation, then you have to agree that he shouldn't have started with health care reform. Either way you slice it, he sucks.

EDIT: You can't have your cake and have it too. Either he compromised on the health care bill and then some (behind doors meetings with Big Pharma!) that broke a lot of his campaign promises, or he foolishly wasted his political capital too early because he was too afraid of hurting Wall Street's feelings. Pick your poison.

so in other words, palin 2012

Like many moderates with no real political party, I could definitely see myself abstaining.

[TakingBackSunday]

this postmortem 20/20 regarding bush is pretty laughable, I'm sorry

[The Fake Shemp]

I don't get it. Nobody is saying he's a good President. He was pretty awful. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, except for you. I'm sorry we're not Probama enough for you, BrandNew. :'(

[Mandark]

Triumph and Willco are gonna eventually troll me into a tl;dr post of Loki proportions explaining why only a wanker wouldn't vote Obama in '12.

The short version:  this session of Congress has accomplished a hell of a lot by historical standards, there aren't plausible counterfactuals where they did much better, a hefty chunk of liberal criticisms boil down to emotional/tribal complaints, and Bush's admin was a lot less of a juggernaut than y'all remember.

[Eric P]

i get what willco is saying and i can see why he makes that argument and to a degree, i would have to agree with his assessment of Bush.  it's not like his voters were tricked. 

[Stoney Mason]

As far as the Bush stuff the documentaries are very interesting. My take on that stuff is Bush was weak. Rumsfeld had balls of steel (I mean that as both a compliment and a criticism) even if he was completely incompetent. I don't think we will ever see anyone like him who was able to wield such amazing influence in that position although worryingly sec of dec seems to be increasing in power with every administration. My feelings on Powell have always been mixed. Even if he was the most "sane" one of that group he is the one that put himself in bed with those people. He is the one who went in front of the UN and said what he said and put his legacy on the line and didn't quit when push came to shove. Cheney is cheney meaning he is an underhanded sneaky bastard who wielded a lot of influence. The only people who sort of come off decent in that administration are Rice and Armitage and even that is with a lot of caveats especially in the case of Rice.

As far as the Obama stuff I'm a very unusual liberal in the sense that I never went annoyingly overboard with Obama love before the election. And I'm not nearly as critical as most internet liberals are now. I have no problem casting my vote for him in 2012. Especially when the other side is still people like Sarah Palin or people who had no problem with the bush years. When people say there is no difference I laugh and laugh...

It all comes down to what your expectations were I suppose though.

[The Fake Shemp]

this session of Congress has accomplished a hell of a lot by historical standards, there aren't plausible counterfactuals where they did much better, a hefty chunk of liberal criticisms boil down to emotional/tribal complaints, and Bush's admin was a lot less of a juggernaut than y'all remember.

Outside of the HCRA, which even you must admit was more than just compromised (Obama gave everything away except a free toaster!), did they really accomplish much more than sorta fixing things broken or pushed off by previous Congressional sessions?

I am not saying I am going to vote Republican. I'm just saying I probably won't vote at all! And that's my right - I don't feel like either party is courting me as a constituent. I reside in No Man's Land.

[The Fake Shemp]

As far as the Bush stuff the documentaries are very interesting. My take on that stuff is Bush was weak. Rumsfeld had balls of steel (I mean that as both a compliment and a criticism) even if he was completely incompetent.

Agreed.

My feelings on Powell have always been mixed. Even if he was the most "sane" one of that group he is the one that put himself in bed with those people. He is the one who went in front of the UN and said what he said and put his legacy on the line and didn't quit when push came to shove.

I sort of agree, but again, I can kind of understand the point of thinking, "If I resign, then I risk letting the future of an entire nation rest on Rummy and Cheney's shoulders."

Cheney is cheney meaning he is an underhanded sneaky bastard who wielded a lot of influence. The only people who sort of come out decent in that administration are Rice and Armitage

Totally agree about Armitage, completely disagree with Rice. Bush's War definitely makes the case that she was passive aggressive, and engaged in subtle political maneuvering to come out on top of the very men that initially pushed her to the side. By the second term, Powell is out, Rummy is out and Cheney is somewhat pacified. Rice ends up, conveniently, on top.

As far as the Obama stuff I'm a very unusual liberal in the sense that I never went annoyingly overboard with Obama love before the election. And I'm not nearly as critical as most internet liberals are now. I have no problem casting my vote for him in 2012. Especially when the other side is still people like Sarah Palin or people who had no problem with the bush years. When people say there is no difference I laugh and laugh...

I'm not saying there's no difference, but neither party are obviously interested in listening to me.

[Stoney Mason]

I sort of agree, but again, I can kind of understand the point of thinking, "If I resign, then I risk letting the future of an entire nation rest on Rummy and Cheney's shoulders."

Honestly the biggest redemption factor for me with him was supporting Obama and attacking McCain and pretty much every other national republican in the process during the election. Not just because I'm liberal and he was supporting "my side" but because it was the closest thing he could do to essentially repudiate all those policies and all those years in the Bush administration. He'll never come out and say it was all a big mistake but that was the closest thing to doing it that someone in his position could do. And since no one important in the bush administration will ever do that it was nice to see someone finally say what everybody knew. 

[Mandark]

Insider-account political journalism is tricky to read.  Remember that the sources are all people who were involved and have their own agendas.  I don't mean that as a pejorative, just that they're going to have an interest in making themselves or their allies or their ideas look good and making other people or factions or ideas look bad, or whatever.

Rumsfeld always comes across the worst in all these stories about the Bush admin, and most of it sure seems justified.  But a big factor is that there seem to be very few people loyal to Rumsfeld, while there are plenty of people (for personal, career, ideological reasons) out there looking to buff or salvage the reputations of Powell, Bush, and others.  Lawrence Wilkerson's made a small career of telling people that Powell (his former boss) was the voice of reason.

It's a big part of why you hear how bad the McCain campaign crashed, but not the Romney campaign.  McCain's done in presidential elections, and people who worked for him in the past have been alienated and don't rely on him for a job.  Romney's still running, AFAIK with the same basic crew, so you won't hear backbiting.  Crazy stories about John Edwards didn't come out until it was painfully clear that he had no future in politics.

Which isn't to say that any of the stuff is worthless or should be discarded, just that everything should come with a grain of salt and taken in context with all the other available info.  Blah blah boring blah.

[TakingBackSunday]

i get what willco is saying and i can see why he makes that argument and to a degree, i would have to agree with his assessment of Bush.  it's not like his voters were tricked. 

oh come on, neither were obama's.  his policies and leanings were right fucking there for people to see.

[The Fake Shemp]

Negative. I believe EVERY word!

[The Fake Shemp]

i get what willco is saying and i can see why he makes that argument and to a degree, i would have to agree with his assessment of Bush.  it's not like his voters were tricked. 

oh come on, neither were obama's.  his policies and leanings were right fucking there for people to see.

I voted for a progressive liberal, I got a centrist that leans right. No thanks, bro.

[Eric P]

i voted for the anti-palin and got the nega-bush instead

[TakingBackSunday]

smh

[The Fake Shemp]

Jon Stewart pretty much sums up my problems with Obama.

[Mandark]

Left out of short version:  conflating the process with the results.

[Human Snorenado]

My problem boils down to lame failures on civil liberties issues and the complete and utter failure to extract a pound of flesh from the Wall St. set.  And I would love to see Mandark try and spin those.

I will, I'm about 95% sure, end up voting for Obama's lame ass in 2012.  Especially if it's Palin on the other side.  But honestly, I'm not sure how much WORSE a President Romney would be.  Neither he nor Obama seem to have any genuine convictions.

Personally, I for one can't wait for Obama to flip on not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts for the uber-rich.

[TakingBackSunday]

yeah, because that makes complete sense based on everything that's been said in the past three years in the political landscape

[Mandark]

His record on civil liberties is terrible, and easily the worst thing about this administration.

But getting a "pound of flesh" out of "the Wall Street set"?  Like I could give a shit.  When I want my elected officials to start punishing the vaguely defined groups that piss me off, I'll re-register as a Republican thankyouverymuch.

[Human Snorenado]

So the complete failure to rein in the stupid behavior that caused the recession doesn't bother you at all? 

[Oblivion]

Obama on financial regulation is absolutely inexcusable. Unlike with health care where one could argue there were enough idiots afraid of death panels that thought companies like Well Point were acting in their customers' best interest, Goldman Sachs and the like were only marginally more popular than Bin Laden. This should have been a slam dunk, and Obongo borked it.

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm not looking for punitive damages, but it is pretty much inexcusable to not pass financial regulation with real teeth. Sure, we got some nice consumer protections, but that's about it. It doesn't address the heart of the problem, which is "too big to fail". Some of the reform just sounds like more bureaucracy.

Fact of the matter, if I am to buy the whole "did the best with what he had" rhetoric, this should have been tackled first. No excuse.

[Mandark]

So the complete failure to rein in the stupid behavior that caused the recession doesn't bother you at all? 

Ah, but that's a mite different from "fucking up the banksters," isn't it?

[Phoenix Dark]

TLDR be damned

I totally disagree on Bush. He was not a "bible thumping" character by most accounts, and actually despised the religious right as much as McCain did; only difference is that he was able to put that aside and use them as a weapon to bolster his support and propagate wedge issues.

It's impossible to compare Obama and Bush's legislative approaches given the huge differences in circumstance and party. Republicans tend to fall lock step behind their president no matter what. Ballooning deficit? No problem. Massive spending? No problem. Nation building? No problem. Whereas the democratic party is typically filled with a wider variety of interests and concern trolls, from liberal to conservative members; the very conservative members who boohoo over Obama's spending voted time and time again for Bush's (I'm looking at you Ben Nelson). In short, Bush rarely ran into issues that required the magic b(ipartisan) word that Obama and the media love so much. Dems balked at Bush's attempt to hijack social security for obvious reasons, and eventually immigration reform died a painful death, but overall Bush received passive to glowing support from democrats on everything outside of the courts.

Obama is dealing with the most obstructionist political party of all time. He could sit on a hill and demand a public option, a revival of the Glass–Steagall Act, and cap & trade - and get nothing. Or he can be a pragmatic politician and get as much as possible while attempting to not piss off as many people as possible. Those choice is clear. We can argue over the quality of the bills, but at the end of the day he's made more legislative progress than any president since LBJ. That's not a fluke, especially considering he's dealing with a group of law makers more obstructionist than the dixiecrats.

While I'm not particularly enthused by the health care bill, calling it garbage is ridiculous; in fact, each time we've debated the bill you've failed to defend your point. It helps millions of people and sets up the infrastructure for a public option, which will happen sooner than later; hell, the bill allows states to set up their own public options thanks to Wyden. My point about it allowing improvement over years is not a negative: it's a pretty damn good stepping stone. Whereas the financial regulation bill is a one and done affair that won't be revisited until the economy crashes again in a decade or so.

At the end of the day Bush was a horrible president who didn't achieve much of anything outside of bankrupting the country, pissing off the world, starting an unnecessary war, continuing the deregulation of every aspect of the economy/energy, mishandling a massive natural disaster, dropping the ball on national security, and putting two young stud conservatives on the SC. If his right/wrong worldview makes him more "genuine" than Obama's nuanced view on the world, so be it. Moreover, if Obama has to cut deals with the devil to clean up The Decider's mess, so be it.

[The Fake Shemp]

Hyperbole aside, do you not think Obama should have broken up the large institutions and pushed legislation that would prevent such institutions from becoming "too big to fail". Some of the new regulations barring particular trading or placing caps on others are nice, but am I to believe that such institutions won't try to create other "complex financial instruments" to trade?

[The Fake Shemp]

He was not a "bible thumping" character by most accounts, and actually despised the religious right as much as McCain did; only difference is that he was able to put that aside and use them as a weapon to bolster his support and propagate wedge issues.

Uh, what? Bush was a well-known born again Christian with deep ties to the religious right. He might not been a diehard Evangelical, but he was most certainly a diehard Christian - hence the fact that he had faith-based advisors who sat on phone calls - and is often quoted as bringing God into the conversation.

At the end of the day Bush was a horrible president who didn't achieve much of anything outside of bankrupting the country, pissing off the world, starting an unnecessary war, continuing the deregulation of every aspect of the economy/energy, mishandling a massive natural disaster, dropping the ball on national security, and putting two young stud conservatives on the SC. If his right/wrong worldview makes him more "genuine" than Obama's nuanced view on the world, so be it. Moreover, if Obama has to cut deals with the devil to clean up The Decider's mess, so be it.

So, again, your argument boils down to the fact that you don't agree with Bush's policies. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. You seem to equate my opinion that Bush is the most genuine of the two Presidents to mean that he is the superior of the two Presidents, which is not just wrong, but silly.

Bush stood by his convictions. No, he did not get everything he wanted - but he got a lot. You knew what you were getting with him, as well. That doesn't make him a great President, so I'm not sure why you even posted all of that?

P.S. Stuff that Obama didn't necessarily have to cut "deals with the devil" on, he's still be more than happy to do so. Dude is just a career politician.

[The Fake Shemp]

And to stop the butthurt, one of the first things I said was:

I gained appreciation for the man on a personal level, but what an awful, awful President. He had no business being in the Oval Office.

Not necessarily a ringing endorsement.

[Phoenix Dark]

He was not a "bible thumping" character by most accounts, and actually despised the religious right as much as McCain did; only difference is that he was able to put that aside and use them as a weapon to bolster his support and propagate wedge issues.

Uh, what?

At the end of the day Bush was a horrible president who didn't achieve much of anything outside of bankrupting the country, pissing off the world, starting an unnecessary war, continuing the deregulation of every aspect of the economy/energy, mishandling a massive natural disaster, dropping the ball on national security, and putting two young stud conservatives on the SC. If his right/wrong worldview makes him more "genuine" than Obama's nuanced view on the world, so be it. Moreover, if Obama has to cut deals with the devil to clean up The Decider's mess, so be it.

So, again, your argument boils down to the fact that you don't agree with Bush's policies. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. You seem to equate my opinion that Bush is the most genuine of the two Presidents to mean that he is the superior of the two Presidents, which is not just wrong, but silly.

Bush stood by his convictions. No, he did not get everything he wanted - but he got a lot. You knew what you were getting with him, as well. That doesn't make him a great President, so I'm not sure why you even posted all of that?

You completely missed the point.

1) There's not much genuine about a guy who presented himself as one thing to the American people while working towards a completely different agenda; you may have thought you knew what you were getting, but you got something completely different. You seem to apply this to Obama, why not Bush?

2) Bush got what he wanted because he had a congress/senate willing to give him what he wanted. It has nothing to do with him having convictions or working hard. In fact, whenever he faced opposition in the senate he failed miserably. Therefore it's hard to compare his record to Obama, who's dealing with a congress that won't give him anything without a fight - making it impossible for him to get exactly what he wants, hence the dealmaking that has defined his legislative record.

3) Bush's entire presidency was a disaster. "Standing by your convictions" when you're a disaster is not particularly impressive or a positive. He got the few things he wanted, but ultimately didn't achieve anything "big." Despite having the congress at his feet.

[Phoenix Dark]

P.S. Stuff that Obama didn't necessarily have to cut "deals with the devil" on, he's still be more than happy to do so. Dude is just a career politician.

Give an example

[Mandark]

Hyperbole aside, do you not think Obama should have broken up the large institutions and pushed legislation that would prevent such institutions from becoming "too big to fail".[/quote

NO.

[The Fake Shemp]

1) There's not much genuine about a guy who presented himself as one thing to the American people while working towards a completely different agenda; you may have thought you knew what you were getting, but you got something completely different. You seem to apply this to Obama, why not Bush?

Bush presented himself as anything but a religious, hard right neocon with a love of supply side economics and a foreign policy constructed from the Reagan years? Really?

2) Bush got what he wanted because he had a congress/senate willing to give him what he wanted. It has nothing to do with him having convictions or working hard. In fact, whenever he faced opposition in the senate he failed miserably. Therefore it's hard to compare his record to Obama, who's dealing with a congress that won't give him anything without a fight - making it impossible for him to get exactly what he wants, hence the dealmaking that has defined his legislative record.

So the argument is Bush pushed for what he wanted, and he got it. When he didn't compromise, he didn't get it. So he really only got what he wanted and was unwilling to compromise on stuff that he wanted. What flim flammery!

3) Bush's entire presidency was a disaster. "Standing by your convictions" when you're a disaster is not particularly impressive or a positive. He got the few things he wanted, but ultimately didn't achieve anything "big." Despite having the congress at his feet.

When did I say it wasn't? Again, you missed point. Stop being defensive. The first thing I said was that he was an awful President; being genuine and being a good President are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Give an example

Big Pharma? Too big to fail? Civil liberties? Etc.

[The Fake Shemp]

Hyperbole aside, do you not think Obama should have broken up the large institutions and pushed legislation that would prevent such institutions from becoming "too big to fail".

NO.

I get it, since I said "do you NOT think", you are agreeing with me - right?

[Mandark]

It's "No, I do not think that would be a good idea."

Everyone I've read who I trust on the issue thinks TBTF is a case of sloganeering over policy, and that capping the size of banks wouldn't do anything to solve the problem of interconnectedness and systemic failure.

[The Fake Shemp]

P.P.S. I won't even get involved in the BP fiasco. I'm not talking about the PR image campaign and that junk. And I don't think Obama should be personally fixing the well, but the I do not know why BP was running local law enforcement, allowed to use excessive amounts of dispersant, the federal government made no effort to accurately gauge the amount of oil leaked, why the federal government has not gotten involved in the claims process, nobody knows where the "$20 billion" is, etc.

[The Fake Shemp]

Everyone I've read who I trust on the issue thinks TBTF is a case of sloganeering over policy, and that capping the size of banks wouldn't do anything to solve the problem of interconnectedness and systemic failure.

But it was policy. We allowed FAILING institutions to survive simply because the amount of the market they controlled was so excessive that the failure could wreck the system. How is that not a problem worth addressing? Should we allow not only banks, but other financial firms to become so large that our economy is dependent on their success or failure?

Pardon my ignorance on this subject, but that just seems wrong.

[Oblivion]

From what I've read, although TBTF is an issue, the far greater problem was the unregulated over the counter derivatives market. Bill Clinton said the same thing.

[The Fake Shemp]

They'll move to something else, though. That's the nature of the beast. When the federal government is finally able to track the derivatives market, Wall Street will be trading the next complex financial instrument. And what then? Wait until the next big bubble, and Wal-Mart, the mega-conglomerate retailer/bank (a very real possibility), goes under and requires a massive bailout to prevent the apocalypse?

[Phoenix Dark]

Bush presented himself as anything but a religious, hard right neocon with a love of supply side economics and a foreign policy constructed from the Reagan years? Really?

He didn't present himself as a compassionate conservative every man not interested in world building? And then what did he do? Redistributed wealth to the wealthy and created one of the most intrusive foreign policies in US history. And on religion: he didn't care about gay marriage, wasn't a hardcore pro-lifer, and did not like the religious right. Sure he read the bible and prayed, but he certainly was not the culture warrior he pretended to be in order  to distract voters from Big Issues. And you seriously call this man genuine.

So the argument is Bush pushed for what he wanted, and he got it. When he didn't compromise, he didn't get it. So he really only got what he wanted and was unwilling to compromise on stuff that he wanted. What flim flammery!

My point is that he didn't have to push for much of anything - he had a congress willing to work with him. Therefore he was in a completely different situation than Obama, who can't get what he wants all the time and has to make deals/compromise.

I'm not being defensive, I'm simply baffled by your argument. The same arguments you make against Obama can be used on Bush.

Big Pharma? Too big to fail? Civil liberties? Etc.

Explain how he didn't have to compromise with Big Pharma? There was not support in the senate for buying perscription drugs over the border. David Vitter and other republicans support for it is no different from republicans claiming cuts in military spending "could" be necessary to cut the deficit: their intention is purely political, and ultimately corporate and political interests determine how they'd actually act if those situations were brought up.

There were not 60 votes for a public option. There weren't 60 votes for a medicare buy-in. There weren't 60 votes to lower the medicare age limit. What exactly could Obama do?

The financial reg bill is an even worse example: there weren't 60 votes to break up the banks, "end" too big to fail, full Volker Rule, etc. Dodd was pretty firmly up Wall Street's asses, and republicans weren't going to give Obama a political victory.

Civil liberty issues often fall directly in the hands of the executive branch, and Obama has shown himself to be no different from Bush on this issue. So where's the compromise?

Still waiting for one example.

[Fresh Prince]

Great black hope, smh.

[The Fake Shemp]

He didn't present himself as a compassionate conservative every man not interested in world building? And then what did he do? Redistributed wealth to the wealthy and created one of the most intrusive foreign policies in US history.

He called himself a uniter, but in his 2000 election brochure, he campaigns on tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, expanding the military, opening ANWR and other anti-environmental policies and funding faith-based groups. Not including the fact that Bush ran on a platform of Christian family values, flying in the face of Clinton's sex scandal. Really, this stuff was a shocker for you?

He was noted as a man not interested in world building, and his Iraqi strategy reflected that. The plan was to almost IMMEDIATELY get out. Within months. The failure to conceive a proper transition strategy and prepare for hostilities is what fucked him over.

Did you even bother to research this?

And on religion: he didn't care about gay marriage

What the fuck are you talking about?

wasn't a hardcore pro-lifer

... What does this mean? He didn't blow up abortion clinics? He's always been pro-life and his policy has reflected that. Now you're making stuff up!

and did not like the religious right.

Where are you getting this from? He had faith-based advisors on call, regularly. He loved the religious right - they got him elected! He thought Evangelicals were a little nuts, but was happy to use them for political gain. But the guy was religious, man.

Sure he read the bible and prayed, but he certainly was not the culture warrior he pretended to be in order to distract voters from Big Issues. And you seriously call this man genuine.

Again, this isn't grounded in reality. Did you completely forget his eight years in office?

Explain how he didn't have to compromise with Big Pharma? There was not support in the senate for buying perscription drugs over the border. David Vitter and other republicans support for it is no different from republicans claiming cuts in military spending "could" be necessary to cut the deficit: their intention is purely political, and ultimately corporate and political interests determine how they'd actually act if those situations were brought up.

Negotiating with Big Pharma behind close doors had nothing to do with the votes on importing or negotiating prices on prescription drugs (which they could have gotten the votes for; six Republicans jumped rank and file when it was introduced before), but creating an ally that could contribute financially to the PR campaign.

There were not 60 votes for a public option. There weren't 60 votes for a medicare buy-in. There weren't 60 votes to lower the medicare age limit. What exactly could Obama do?

I never said there was. This would have the lone concession I could understand, but Obama caved in totally.

The financial reg bill is an even worse example: there weren't 60 votes to break up the banks, end too big to fail, full Volker Rule, etc. Dodd was pretty firmly up Wall Street's asses, and republicans weren't going to give Obama a political victory.

There were sixty votes. Eighteen months ago. You can't play this card; just because Obama blew his political capital on HCRA, doesn't mean he gets a pass for blowing it with financial reform. This should have been first. See: a page ago.

Civil liberty issues often fall directly in the hands of the executive branch, and Obama has shown himself to be no different from Bush on this issue. So where's the compromise?

What? How does not doing what you SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO (based on your idealogical values!), simply out of convenience, not equal of a compromise of principles? You can't even argue on this one!

EDIT: Removed a bit about Republicans being on board with importing and Medicare negotiations, because I can't really cite many instances of the former outside of the pundit circuit.

[Mandark]

We allowed FAILING institutions to survive simply because the amount of the market they controlled was so excessive that the failure could wreck the system.

It wasn't the size of the banks that made them liable to wreck the system.  Lehman, which set the whole thing off, wasn't that big.  I'm pretty sure Long Term Capital Management, which was the subject of a private rescue orchestrated by the Fed in the late 90's, was even smaller.

Even if all banks were subject to a hard cap, the underlying issues would still be there and the collapse of one institution would be just as threatening to the whole system.  Maybe more so, because there wouldn't be any larger banks able to step in and buy the failing one.

[The Fake Shemp]

How would the collapse of a smaller institution threaten the system more than a behemoth? I'm not trying to be arrogant here. Realistic question that I sincerely do not know the answer to. Math was my worst subject.

[Mandark]

Smaller banks aren't a bigger threat, but banks that are bigger relative to possible buyers.

It's because when a financial institution looks like it might fail and create a downward spiral that will hurt the others, one of the first options is to have a larger institution buy it (and either eat the losses or use their stable position to hold the failing banks assets until the panic is over and they've regained their value).  Remember JP Morgan buying Lehman and Lehman almost being sold to BofA and/or Barclays.

If you cap banks, and one of the banks at or near the max is failing, this isn't an option.

If Willcobank has assets of $2 trillion, and Mandark Holdings is valued at $400 billion, then the big bank can step in and buy the other.  If both of them are right up against the $100 billion ceiling, then it gets trickier.  There are other possible solutions (Willcobank, Cohen Trust, Patel Fargo, and First Cruncheon can create some ad hoc icon rescue group and divvy up the assets in a way that doesn't put them over), but you're taking one off the table.

[Phoenix Dark]

At this point I don't know if you're simply mischaracterizing my points or simply don't get them. My point on gay marriage and abortion is that personally, Bush didn't give a shit about either issue. Posting a link to him proposing an (impossible) constitutional amendment is as irrelevant as Lindsy Graham proposing a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship: Neither is going to happen, neither represents the actual beliefs of the politician, and both are merely political ploys to pander to the base.

In terms of Bush's religion and views and the religious right
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3686695/Bible-probably-not-true-says-George-Bush.html

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/15/quote-of-the-day-3/

Once again, where is your proof about compromising for nothing? There weren't 60 votes for drugs across the border, and it's laughable to even bring up republicans - they weren't voting for it anyway. The amendment didn't have enough support to be brought to the floor. So you're wrong there.

Obama "blowing" political capitol on health care has nothing to do with financial regulation. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where republicans refused to work with Obama on the issue, even 18 months ago; we've seen their argument against regulation for the last 18 months anyway. Moreover we are talking about today, and as of today there is not support for truly ending TBTF, in the WH or in congress. So you're wrong there.

On civil liberties you have a point; I approached the issue from a point of asking if Obama has compromised in order to get his way on the issue. You're right that he has compromised his ideological positions pre-election. I'm just pointing out this had nothing to do with congress. Good point.

Outside of civil liberties your points are pretty weak. Obama has compromised to get legislature passed. Bush is far from a genuine politician. I'm going to leave it at that, I don't see the point in repeating myself again. I'm far from an Obama apologizer, but the man is not an island. He doesn't decide what passes in the senate. He didn't write the financial regulation bill. We can complain about Obama not fighting hard enough or whatever, but ultimately everything requires 60 votes. If there was no filibuster we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead we'd be posting in Cheebs threads rating the presidents, putting Obama near the top of the list.

[Dickie Dee]

P.P.S. I won't even get involved in the BP fiasco. I'm not talking about the PR image campaign and that junk. And I don't think Obama should be personally fixing the well, but the I do not know why BP was running local law enforcement, allowed to use excessive amounts of dispersant, the federal government made no effort to accurately gauge the amount of oil leaked, why the federal government has not gotten involved in the claims process, nobody knows where the "$20 billion" is, etc.

The BP fund is being held in escow and is being managed by the same guy who oversaw the 911 fund - they're specifically not getting the gov't involved in the claims process by design, other than Obama picking the man to manage the account.

There were stories awhile back that BP did miss the deadline asked for by Obama to set up the fund, that's obviously something he should get involved with.

[Brehvolution]

No Child Left Behind was nothing but an expensive failure according to my wife who has been a public school teacher for 11 years. It did nothing but regurgitate failed teaching methods that had been abandoned for a decade. But it had its intended effect... make Bush's friends and family a ton of money on the taxpayer's dime.

[The Fake Shemp]

\ Posting a link to him proposing an (impossible) constitutional amendment is as irrelevant as Lindsy Graham proposing a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship: Neither is going to happen, neither represents the actual beliefs of the politician, and both are merely political ploys to pander to the base.

How can you - with a serious face - say that Bush proposing a ban on same sex marriages does not highlight his opinion on gay marriage? So far, your entire argument has been, "Nah nah, I can't hear you!"

In terms of Bush's religion and views and the religious right

Just because Bush doesn't believe in creationism, doesn't mean he's not religious. Again, he had faith-based advisor sit on cabinet meetings! Just because he's not a diehard Evangelical (I never said he was, despite his connections and the fact that he was born again), doesn't mean he isn't a devout Christian. That's silly - it's painfully obvious that he leans hard right and falls in line with Christianity, but you're equating Evangelical fundamentalism to being Christian. I'm not mis-characterizing your points, you simply don't have one that's valid.

You can criticize Bush for a lot of things, but being a disingenuous Christian is not one of them.

Short form: Your argument is that because he does not blow up abortion clinics, believe in creationism and personally lynch gay married couples that he somehow isn't very religious. Or doesn't like the religious right. None of the facts support this and you don't have to be a fundamentalist to be religious.

EDIT: I'm not going to get involved with a pseudo-strawman argument with you about Obama until you address the fact that you're wrong about Bush's religious leanings and the fact that he enacted reforms he ran on, and we'll move from there. This multi-pronged debate of random conjecture versus facts is too unwieldy.

No Child Left Behind was nothing but an expensive failure according to my wife who has been a public school teacher for 11 years. It did nothing but regurgitate failed teaching methods that had been abandoned for a decade. But it had its intended effect... make Bush's friends and family a ton of money on the taxpayer's dime.

Oh, it was a disaster, but that was one of the pillars of his 2000 election. He ran on it. He got it. Again, I don't think he's a good President, but say what you want: the man ran on a set of principles and governed by those principles. For better or worse. Maurice has interpreted this to mean I think that he's a better President or something. Not true.

...

If Willcobank has assets of $2 trillion, and Mandark Holdings is valued at $400 billion, then the big bank can step in and buy the other.  If both of them are right up against the $100 billion ceiling, then it gets trickier.  There are other possible solutions (Willcobank, Cohen Trust, Patel Fargo, and First Cruncheon can create some ad hoc icon rescue group and divvy up the assets in a way that doesn't put them over), but you're taking one off the table.

I understand this. My question to you is if we put a ceiling on these banks, wouldn't the impact be far lesser than if a megabank failed? It might remove the ability for a big bank to buy a smaller bank, but if the bank failed, it would not cripple the system, no?

I think the argument boils down to, do you create a system with a very limited shot of institutions failing by letting other non-capped institutions buy their assets, or creating a system that runs the risk collapsing if a megabank fails. Kind of a difference between losing an arm and a heart attack, no?

[Phoenix Dark]

Yes I can and will say Bush didn't care about gay marriage, and his proposal to ban it was nothing more than throwing a bone to the religious right.

After hosting the anti-gay groups, Bush could hardly wait to tour the country pushing something he really cares about, his immigration bill, fueling the sense of some conservatives that they've been played.

There is always the underlying suspicion that Bush may revert to his family's default position on social issues, which is not to really care. Barbara Bush didn't hide her respect for Planned Parenthood. Laura Bush said on the ``Today'' show in 2001 that she didn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Just last month, the first lady said gay marriage was a sensitive issue that shouldn't be used for political purposes.

Before running for president, Bush surely didn't seem to worry about gay couples. A good friend of mine who worked closely with Bush in Texas was invited by the then-governor to spend the night at the mansion -- with his gay partner. Back then, Bush discussed the issue of gay marriage as a solution to the problem of promiscuity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=axuWXIPksRuE

Bush is certainly religious. My point is that he's far from the bible thumper some portray him and his wife as. "Blowing up" abortion clinics and such has nothing to do with it: the man was more moderate than advertised. His concessions to the religious right were mainly rooted in Karl Rove's electoral strategy to divide the country with wedge issues and motivate the religious vote.

You can use Bush as your excuse, but the fact remains that you're unable to defend your position on Obama, once again; I asked for examples of legislative compromises he made that were not required, and you came up with nothing. Same thing happened with health care the last time we debated it a couple months ago. By your logic, Bush is as hypocritical as Obama. He kept his word on tax cuts, but the few other legislation pieces he passed in no way resembled what he campaigned on, and that's a fact; perhaps the most glaring example is NCLB.

You haven't followed the legislative battles, or you don't understand the political climate in the senate. Obama got three republican votes for financial reg mainly due to compromises and concessions (especially Scott Brown's shit sammich). That's how things work. He runs up against far more opposition yet still has managed to surpass Bush, who could get nearly everything he wanted.

When you actually have some decent points we can continue. Until then, save the Ratigan-esque hyperbole for someone else

[Oblivion]

Now THIS is how you skewer a republican. Ratigan needs to take notes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#38528512

[Cheebs]

This can't be real
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/angle-on-the-press-only-ask-the-questions-we-want-to-answer-video.php?ref=fpb

[The Fake Shemp]

Watch me deflect the argument away with an editorial quote about how Bush might be secretly moderate (although his public record, which apparently I don't follow, is nothing of the sort), and completely disavow idealogical and campaign compromises Obama has made! (Because Congress is tuff!)

You're right, arguing with you is futile!

Still, the best part of this argument was you arguing that Bush is hypocritical to his fabricated religious roots and that a backroom deal with Big Pharma was required.

Good times.

[Phoenix Dark]

A backroom deal with Pharma saved health care, unfortunately.

You know the argument is poor when someone endlessly pivots away from the main gist of the debate, which is what you tend to do whenever we discuss the "garbage" health care bill, or Obama in general. I asked for one example, you didn't provide one and instead pivoted to Bush. He is not a hardcore religious right figure, and actually had disdain for the movement. That's a fact.

Nor have you explained how Obama could have passed a health care bill that would pass your sniff test and get 60 votes. It passes Paul Krugman's, so I'm fine with it.

[AdmiralViscen]

I thought it was common knowledge by now that Bush didn't personally give a shit about gay marriage.

[Phoenix Dark]

bububu he asked for a constitutional amendment to ban it! clearly he meant serious business, considering how easy it is to amend the constitution and shit. right, right?

Also on a more local note, looks like Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is going down in flames in the primary. Detroit finally does something right.

[Phoenix Dark]

For a commencement address at Furman University in spring 2008, Ed Gillespie wanted to insert a few lines condemning gay marriage. Bush called the speech too "condemnatory" and said, "I'm not going to tell some gay kid in the audience that he can't get married." (Of course, Bush ran his 2004 campaign telling that kid just that.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/20/bush-in-2008-im-not-going_n_292876.html

Couldn't remember where I heard this, finally found a link. Quite the Culture Warrior aye

[Brehvolution]

Isn't it funny how you always hear about Obama and the dems trashing the constitution yet it's the distinguished mentally-challenged fellows who want to change it to fit their current worldview?

[Brehvolution]

I'm mainly talking about how the Reps want to amend the 14th. They are happy to "wrap themselves in the Constitution" except for parts they want changed, and they are the only ones allowed to change it.

[Phoenix Dark]

It's nothing more than another talking point for them to jump on without fear of actually having to come through on it. Amending the constitution is not a walk in the park, and sane people realize it's not going to happen. But McCain, Graham, McConnel, etc aren't interested in sane people.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Each side thinks that they have the better interpretation of the Constitution.  Shocking, I know.

Amending the 14th Amendment is just a masturbatory fantasy for the tea partiers to rile them up for the fall.  Not unlike the amendment to ban gay marriage or flag burning during the Bush years - GOP congresspeople know it will never happen ('cept maybe a few here and there like Bachmann) but it keeps their base motivated and energized.  Not really worth discussing IMO.