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

[Great Rumbler]

vote on the dream act occurs tomorrow.  all those emails and phone calls better have done something

The reply I got back from my Senators was basically "sorry, but you're wrong, DREAM Act is going down."

[Brehvolution]

vote on the dream act occurs tomorrow.  all those emails and phone calls better have done something

The reply I got back from my Senators was basically "sorry, but you're wrong, DREAM Act is going down."

Yeah, I was gonna say that. Repubs don't care about any meaningful immigration reform. They had their majority with W and he rejected their offer. Probably due to the mega farms and their buddies who soaked up that farmland during the Reagan years. Big corn's cock makes a huge thud on the sink. Just look a the ethanol subsidies.

[Mandark]

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. 
 
Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

[ ]Strongly disagree
[ ]Somewhat disagree
[ ]Don't know/No opinion
[ ]Somewhat agree
[X]Strongly agree

[Stoney Mason]

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. 
 
Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

[ ]Strongly disagree
[ ]Somewhat disagree
[ ]Don't know/No opinion
[ ]Somewhat agree
[X]Strongly agree

I've felt this way a bunch of times on a lot of issues. Some liberals and dems have traded in reality for 100% doctrine conformity. That if only we did nothing but held to our strong principles that is better. As a governing principle that makes zero sense. Especially if that is your standard on every single issue. And in fact sounds a lot like the Demint's of the world. 

[Van Cruncheon]

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. 
 
Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

[X]Strongly disagree
[ ]Somewhat disagree
[ ]Don't know/No opinion
[ ]Somewhat agree
[]Strongly agree

pragmatism is a cute look, but ultimately this is parker/stone style "moderate" ideology at its most grating -- where you pretend to a sort of empty and posturing adulthood within the greater debate. "hush, children," you say, "daddy is more concerned with driving" as the tires spin crazily in the ditch. "so stop shouting!" you add, as a chunk of whitewall peels off and flies into the night.

seriously, i would be fine with compromise if he wasn't trying to negotiate with folks who are catshit fucking bonkers. "compromise" is neither effective nor an adult thing to do when negotiating with ideological children throwing a temper tantrum -- and if this ISN'T compromising; if what obama is doing is reflective of his own ideology, then well, perhaps he too can have a second term and blame it all on parkinson's~

this isn't right versus left. it's not even republican versus democrat. it's corporate interests and wounded culture warriors against the remaining sane. it's the panicked herd trying to eat their own. you don't fix that with fucking COMPROMISE. you fix it by TELLING THE DUMBFUCKS WHAT TO DO. consider it the keynesian take on basic leadership and management. in the summer when the lamb is fat and bellies are full, you compromise; and when the cold winds blow and the natives get restless, you crack the fucking whip and get people in line. i have successfully managed countless corporate and business crises involving many, many people, and we got through them with vision, leadership, and effectively locking the "no" set out. it's management 101, and i suggest our favorite community organizer read up on it. (seriously, we teach courses on this shit.)

[brawndolicious]

What?  Don't compromise and just tell them what they're supposed to do?  Why would they listen to him?

[Mandark]

For now, I'm going to ignore how very Republican that post was ("All we need is willpower to make this mission succeed!  Lemme tell ya how we do it in the corporate sector...") and ask what the counterfactual is in this specific case.

[Human Snorenado]

My main problem is that I feel like the 2008 election should have settled some things permanently, one of them being the "tax cuts for the rich are great for everyone!" myth, and that apparently this isn't the case.  And that if you can't adequately communicate that to the populace at large, well then maybe you're a fucking failure of a party, leader and movement.

Of course, it doesn't help that the media and Very Serious Washington Thinkers won't tell the truth about the Republican party:  that they're a bunch of fucktards that have no interest in governing.  They're interested in tax cuts for the rich, telling you what you can and can't do and who you can and can't do it with, and killing brown skinned foreigners, apparently in that order.  Actually running a government is so far down their list of interests it probably ranks in between croquet and baking.

[Van Cruncheon]

What?  Don't compromise and just tell them what they're supposed to do?  Why would they listen to him?

they won't listen to him. that's why you wage your own fucking media war. you remove the pillars of their support. you cajole, you threaten, you break some eggs and you sell a couple more out. you tell mitch mcconnell and john fucking boehner that they will get in line or their corporate benefactors will be on his personal shitlist. you shut fox nesws out and you shut it down no matter how loud they squeal. you take real, palpable risks. you stand up for the platform you were elected to support. leadership is an ugly fucking business. if there's any silly ideological purity here, it's that obama thought he could play ball with this pseudo-rational voice the posturing "adults" like him to use to no avail whatsoever --  and unsurprisingly, that approach didn't come in and send the republicans squealing for the hills. he's let them exploit the media and public opinion to rock him from day one. from health care to shirley sherrod to wikileaks, he's been the media's bitch, and i see no sign that he has learned to play this game. "don't sink to their level!" huff the erstwhile political adults, with their manufactured pragmatism. fine, then. the squeaky wheel will get the grease. the bar will move ever closer to the idiots and their wealthy oligarch puppeteers. show up to the match, throw a few spin kicks at the air, and when you find yourself face down on the mat, unable to breathe in a clutch hold, by all means say "can't we play by more civilized rules" but do NOT expect me to not give a bitter ironic laugh when you hafta tap out. and do NOT expect me to think highly of you because you kicked "this high."

[Van Cruncheon]

For now, I'm going to ignore how very Republican that post was ("All we need is willpower to make this mission succeed!  Lemme tell ya how we do it in the corporate sector...") and ask what the counterfactual is in this specific case.

so republicans have the exclusive on success in business? OH MY. should i ignore your suggestion of ideological differences; that the make up of democrats and republicans are so very different? that sounds terribly unpragmatic!

and of course this is counterfactual. are you likewise suggesting that obama is free from the shackles of -- le gasp! -- ideological thinking and behaviors? you're pining for the fjords of a practicality that doesn't exist in politics. real, tenable, useful political "compromise" happens when both sides pull as hard as they can until they tire, and we discover where the rope dropped. it doesn't happen when one side lets go, or offers just enough feeble resistance to tell the judges that he tried.

[Mandark]

Could you answer my question, though?

[Van Cruncheon]

tell me what a "counterfactual" is, then, because we use it to mean "magical thinking" and i am in no way suggesting that my post is a concrete solution because, SPLUH, it isn't. it's a complaint, and one whose credibility is born out by -- shock! -- experience.

edit: unless you're asking me to show how things got WORSE because of the health care bill, and i'll give a couple: a) it gave great political cover for insurance companies to justify their predetermined massive rate hikes; b) it has enough loopholes to mitigate the net gain of ending rescission; and c) it increases the overall burden on small business by requiring a certain level of participation in insurance (especially the self-employed). it does NOTHING to correct the rising systemic cost of medical care; it does nothing to cap rates; it creates a pseudo risk pool that hits the middle class the hardest.

single payer was viable. the public option was viable. we just counted on obama having the ability to sell it.

[Mandark]

I'm asking about this deal on tax cuts, mang.

[Van Cruncheon]

are you asking me to state my stance on it? what i'd do? i'd have let them all expire, and waged media war on an epic scale. i'd have pointed out my noble intentions every step of the way from the moment i stepped into office, and when everyone got the tax bill thanks to republican filibustering -- assuming they actually had the cojones to block it entirely -- i woulda told the republicans "well, guess what, motherfuckers, i'm addressing your precious fucking deficit." then i would have stepped into the cockpit of my sr-71 and flew straight into the sun, just because i am THAT FUCKING AWESOME. i'd live my one term LARGE.

[Mandark]

That wouldn't work.

[Van Cruncheon]

feckless pragmatism: the new visionary! there is no leadership; there is merely the meandering of the status quo. the herd moves as it wills!

[Oblivion]

drinky/grayson 2012!

[Human Snorenado]

So the alternative is to let the Republicans scream and cry, call the President a socialist, and then give them the only thing they really care about in exchange for keeping some people out of the gutter?

Man, the government is AWESOME.  I can't see why anyone would get disenchanted with such a kick-ass system.

[Van Cruncheon]

i prefer drinky/blakemore 2012.

[Van Cruncheon]

So the alternative is to let the Republicans scream and cry, call the President a socialist, and then give them the only thing they really care about in exchange for keeping some people out of the gutter?

Man, the government is AWESOME.  I can't see why anyone would get disenchanted with such a kick-ass system.

you don't understand: the adults tell us that it's supposed to be this way, and that it's effective. change doesn't happen overnight! (except when it does, black swan style)

[Oblivion]

What about drinky/wiener 2012?   

[Van Cruncheon]

a cock pic for every family, and mandatory abortions for all teenagers!

[Mandark]

btw, my responses would be a bit more serious if I didn't feel like you were just reciting your side of an argument you've had with other people over and over and over (and isn't the one I'm making).

[Van Cruncheon]

and mine would be a bit more serious if i wasn't tired of the hemming, hawing, and arched eyebrows coming from folks who should really know better.

[Phoenix Dark]

are you asking me to state my stance on it? what i'd do? i'd have let them all expire, and waged media war on an epic scale. i'd have pointed out my noble intentions every step of the way from the moment i stepped into office, and when everyone got the tax bill thanks to republican filibustering -- assuming they actually had the cojones to block it entirely -- i woulda told the republicans "well, guess what, motherfuckers, i'm addressing your precious fucking deficit." then i would have stepped into the cockpit of my sr-71 and flew straight into the sun, just because i am THAT FUCKING AWESOME. i'd live my one term LARGE.

You'd hit middle class families with a $3000 tax hike, then go on TV and brag about it? That wouldn't work bro. This was a losing issue from the start, at least on conventional grounds. It becomes an entirely different issue if democrats pull out the nuclear option, have Biden provide the 51st vote, and shitcan this abomination for good. That was the only way to do it; can't use reconciliation anymore, can't get an up or down vote, etc. Instead the can gets kicked down the curb again, so in Nov 2012 (assuming Obama wins) he can tell another lameduck session of congress to extend the cuts so the middle class doesn't get hit with a huge tax increase in Jan 2013. And if we have President Romney? Bush tax cuts extended forever.

It's hard to accept Obama's public option analogy when you remember he took it off the table to appease health care companies before the debate even began. But let's accept it anyway: we get an extension of unemployment benefits, one year of pay roll tax relief, and businesses get to write off more stuff when they upgrade certain assets. I like all three of those things, most Americans like those things, most businesses like those things. The problem is that most republicans used to like those things too, but because they're dancing for a far right base, they've decided all those things aren't cool. Extending UB and a pay roll tax holiday shouldn't fucking be bargaining chips, they should be moderate, agreeable grounds of agreement to provide relief/stimulate the economy. Yet the GOP has moved so far right that things that used to be conservative (you know, like Obama's health care bill circa 1994) or moderate are now liberal.

And that's the problem for the future. While I'll accept this deal, what other poison pills will Obama accept in the future to get formerly conservative ideas passed?

[Mandark]

Prole: I really mean what I said, not as a troll.  When people rehash the same debates over and over, they tend to read anyone who's disagreeing them as fitting whatever the typical opposite viewpoint is.

If I see a liberal use "adult" "grown-up" or "VSP" as a pejorative (see Greenwald, FDL, etc), that's a sign to me they're mocking the Broder/DLC/Hiatt worldview, which holds compromise as more important than the results it produces, and which excludes strong, unapologetic progressive opinions from polite conversation in the political and media classes.

And hey, I agree with the netroots there, completely.  The problem is that it's become such sore point that you can't say anything or defense of Democratic officeholders without making a lot of people feel that you're patronizing them.  And once people start responding to views that they project on you rather than your own actual opinions, it becomes pretty fucking hopeless (last year I was accused of being a pro-Ahmadinejad stooge in the comment section of a feminist blog!  Yay!).

[Van Cruncheon]

of course i wouldn't brag about it. i wouldn't even talk about myself. i'd say "ENJOY THE TAX HIKE YOUR REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS GOT YOU." and then the business of image management would begin in earnest.

[Van Cruncheon]

Prole: I really mean what I said, not as a troll.  When people rehash the same debates over and over, they tend to read anyone who's disagreeing them as fitting whatever the typical opposite viewpoint is.

If I see a liberal use "adult" "grown-up" or "VSP" as a pejorative (see Greenwald, FDL, etc), that's a sign to me they're mocking the Broder/DLC/Hiatt worldview, which holds compromise as more important than the results it produces, and which excludes strong, unapologetic progressive opinions from polite conversation in the political and media classes.

And hey, I agree with the netroots there, completely.  The problem is that it's become such sore point that you can't say anything or defense of Democratic officeholders without making a lot of people feel that you're patronizing them.  And once people start responding to views that they project on you rather than your own actual opinions, it becomes pretty fucking hopeless (last year I was accused of being a pro-Ahmadinejad stooge in the comment section of a feminist blog!  Yay!).

which would be fine if i was disagreeing your direct opinion. instead, i took umbrage with obama's remarks, which you cited, and to which you added your explicit and unqualified support in a checkbox!

[Phoenix Dark]

of course i wouldn't brag about it. i wouldn't even talk about myself. i'd say "ENJOY THE TAX HIKE YOUR REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS GOT YOU." and then the business of image management would begin in earnest.

Image management? Governing is not McDonalds. You could decree everyone gets infinite side hugz from Halle Berry for two years to make up for it,and people would still be pissed. You can't raise people's taxes and get away with it, end of story. Especially not after promising not to, unless you want to go fishing with HW. Letting the cuts expire for the middle class is not on the table if a president wants to be re-elected. The Bush tax cuts were a pretty clever time bomb.

With that in mind, something had to be agreed upon (since the nuclear option is apparently not on the table, smh). Obama is right that ideologues can't simply walk away from the table/discussion unless they get everything they want. Whether it's this deal or Scott Brown working to allow states to opt out of the health care bill/create their own system, a good political process needs compromise to thrive. You don't get anything by going home empty handed because of principles.

[Van Cruncheon]

did you miss the joke about being a one-termer, maurice? mandark asked what i woulda done. i think we need to boost taxes and bring revenue in, and upscale government spend to get out of this recession. i'd take that bullet, and gladly, and likewise spin as much blame on the republicans as possible. clearly, YOU can't play a game of chicken any better than obama can. have you been listening to ezra klein get all hysterical about this again?

besides, exactly how popular is obama now? this ain't gonna save his image, either, now that his base is in revolt. (although i do kinda appreciate his token gesture to small businesses amidst his folding.)

and yes, politics IS mcdonalds: perception dictates reality. it's why sarah palin is still in business. as long as folks so naively think that politics is anything OTHER than a giant shell game, they'll continue to get played as fools. in the game of realpolitik, hypocrisy is a tool, not a failing.

[Phoenix Dark]

Ah ok, your plan; missed that part, my bad. I'll stick with Obama's and actually create some jobs and put money in people's pockets. I don't mean to sound flippant, but given the two choices it seems like one option is significantly better for the country than the other. I'd still vote for you 

anyway
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/8/926769/-Keith-Olbermanns-Special-Comment-destroys-Barack-Obamas-argument-for-Bush-Tax-Cuts-%28Video%29
 :santocry

[Oblivion]

“At one point, Obama said he would rather be a good one-term president rather than a mediocre two-term president. However, because of his failure to challenge the Republican­s, it now appears that he will end up being a mediocre (or worse) one-term president.”

[Van Cruncheon]

pd: i'm not arguing that there isn't a silver lining in the compromise -- far from it. the cbo estimates that potentially a couple million jobs could result from spending associated with the middle-class tax cuts and the small business stimulus (although I'll ask how many government and private sector jobs will be lost by 900b in budget shortfall over the next two years as well). i am arguing with obama's methodology, and the idea that small steps are the rational approach, when historically sweeping changes and legislation have been a necessity in times as dire as this. and most importantly, as a leader, you do NOT capitulate to foolishness offered by beggars operating in bad faith. no matter how ol' nobama furrows his brow in consternation at his critics, he fucking caved. he didn't TRY to get it all. period.

obama wasn't given "two choices." he let the republicans and the media frame his choices. he could have chosen to control the framing through image management and realpolitik, but he didn't, and here we are!

[Phoenix Dark]

On that, I agree 100%. He essentially "won" a handful of pretty conservative victories, while giving republicans even more conservative victories. And what exactly changes in 2012 when this tax increase spectre is revived? It just will get extended again and again and again until one party has the votes to shitcan or extend it.

While I'm not happy he is conceding to sheer madness, these clowns have everyone by the balls: if they don't get their way, they block everything and everyone's taxes go up. But Obama is still president, and as such he has the ability to change the entire debate with a veto threat or the nuclear option. Right now congressman from both sides are saying they won't support this deal; Pelosi has 100 dems against it allegedly. If that's true, there really is no other option than a nuclear one. The house already passed the middle class tax cuts. 50+Biden in the senate and we go from QQing to dapping Obama for being badass.

[Mandark]

(although I'll ask how many government and private sector jobs will be lost by 900b in budget shortfall over the next two years as well).

Wait, what?

[Van Cruncheon]

that 900b in continued tax cuts means 900b less theoretical revenue for the government, which, as the largest employer and source of capital investment in the country, could be deployed in, i dunno, job creation and/or preservation. but yeah, shortfall wasn't the right word. my bad!

that said, i don't see taxes increasing as a bad thing despite the overall unpopularity of such an act; in fact, i view it as a very necessary thing. that tends to color my perception of this whole affair.

and if the white house had any druthers, they could have passed the unemployment extension separately, AND hung the republicans out to dry on it. hell, scottie brown even said as much.

[Mandark]

I think that's a big part of why the netroots are so sour on this deal.  Lots of them would be okay with the cuts expiring altogether, whereas it's a high priority for the White House to extend unemployment benefits and the refundable cuts while the economy's still down.  If you feel fine walking away, you're going to expect a much tougher negotiating stance.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

The tax cuts expiring could send potentially millions of lower and middle class Americans over the edge.  I imagine quite a few are on knife's edge and having a thousand more dollars in taxes may very well mean bills getting paid vs. defaulting.

Republicans were going to fight to retain the upper class tax cuts anyway.

I think extending the cuts a couple years from now was the best plan.  By that time, hopefully the economy should be moving again, and Obama maybe can obtain more political capital to stand up to the GOP in 2012 when Sarah Palin's presidential bid is collapsing when people are no longer tolerant of her aw shucks incoherency.

The deficit will widen though but like I said, neither party really cares until it hits some crisis point.

I don't think Obama is some political genius for this compromise like the cult set is insinuating.  He's just caving, as per the usual.

[Van Cruncheon]

[Great Rumbler]

(Image removed from quote.)

[Mupepe]

wait, wtf is that from?

[Brehvolution]

It's a fake.

[Mupepe]

too bad

[Mupepe]

So the House Democrats are apparently not going to debate the tax cuts that the Senate passed.  Democrats are finally deciding to show backbone?  YOU'RE TWO YEARS LATE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS

Also, DREAM act passed the House last night but I expected it would.  The Senate is where I'm skeptical and now that House Democrats are throwing a fit I really doubt it'll pass the Senate. 

Again, TWO YEARS TOO LATE YOU STUPID FUCKS!  LET'S GROW A BACKBONE DURING A LAME DUCK SESSION.  YES.  PLEASE. 

[Mupepe]

THOSE FUCKING PRICKS.  THEY CANCELED THE DREAM ACT VOTE SO IT'S FUCKING DEAD.  FUCKING DEAD.  GAHHHHHHHHH

[Phoenix Dark]

They  tabled it since there aren't 60 votes for it smh. Wouldn't have this problem if they changed the filibuster

Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.

Facing GOP objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They're short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.

Democratic officials say they'll try to move a House-passed version after the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts. Republicans have said they won't agree to consider anything else until those issues are addressed.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/12/democrats_delay_action_on_young_immigrants_bill.php?ref=fpa

edit: it's getting voted on next week

[Brehvolution]

[Oblivion]

wait, wtf is that from?

It was from Jay Leno.

[Great Rumbler]

[youtube=560,345]DXEREI5IYb0[/youtube]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[youtube=560,345]S0Tfu27Bz2w[/youtube]

[close]

[Oblivion]

Pelosi won't hold vote on Obama's tax plan -aide

Dec 9 (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not bring President Barack Obama's current proposed tax plan up for a vote in her chamber, an aide said on Thursday.

The aide said Pelosi would require changes be made to the measure that most of her fellow House Democrats formally opposed by approving a resolution of opposition to it. The aide said: "She (Pelosi) will honor the resolution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN422420101209

Oh, dear. 

[brawndolicious]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101209/cm_ac/7370814_westboro_baptist_church_to_protest_elizabeth_edwards_funeral

Since Elizabeth Edwards was apparently in favor of gay marriage, the westboro baptist church is going to protest at her funeral.  Supposedly, 800 people joined a facebook group to make a "wall of peace" around the protesters to keep them from disrupting the funeral.  Can't people just ignore them?

[ShogunOfFear]

I was just about to post that.  That's messed up, very disrespectful.  It's like they're trolling to be despised.

[Human Snorenado]

I for one am looking forward to Fred Phelps' funeral.  Not saying I hope he dies, but I'm just saying the awesome stuff done during his funeral is gonna be epic.

[G The Resurrected]

Man I forgot how freaking hard it is to write up a resume. Anyone got any good templates or suggestions? I've been sitting in front of my computer for a few hours trying to do this and I am getting so frustrated.

Self worth = Zero right now

[G The Resurrected]

I got $30 but thats about it lol. Seriously though $300 bucks fuck? I'm just now going back to college I don't have that kind of change

[Phoenix Dark]

running for congress, G?

[Great Rumbler]

I was just about to post that.  That's messed up, very disrespectful.  It's like they're trolling to be despised.

These people are borderline insane, it's hard to figure out just why it is they do what they do.

[ShogunOfFear]

Ron Paul will be Chairman of the Subcommittee for Monetary Policy


Ron Paul, Author of ‘End the Fed,’ to Lead Fed Panel
December 09, 2010, 2:51 PM EST

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, Texas Republican and author of “End the Fed,” will take control of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve.
House Financial Services chairman-elect Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican, selected Paul, 75, to lead the panel’s domestic monetary policy subcommittee when their party takes the House majority next month, the committee chairman said today.

“This is the leadership team that crafted the first comprehensive financial reform bill to put an end to the bailouts, wind down the taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and enforce a strong audit of the Federal Reserve,” Bachus said in a statement.

Paul, in an interview last week, said he plans a slate of hearings on U.S. monetary policy and will restart his push for a full audit of the Fed’s functions.

“We are ready to hit the ground running, and I look forward to continuing our work in the next Congress,” Bachus said.

Paul, who has introduced legislation to abolish the Fed, became nationally known during his 2008 presidential campaign. His campaign to audit the Fed picked up steam as the central bank deployed trillions of dollars in emergency loans in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Paul’s bill gained the support of 320 of 435 members of the House and a portion of the measure ended up in the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul enacted this year.

Attacks on Bernanke

Paul’s assignment comes as the Republican Party has stepped up attacks on Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the central bank in the wake of the Nov. 3 announcement that it would buy bonds in an attempt to bring down unemployment and prevent inflation.

“Congress must act to rein in Chairman Bernanke and the Fed before they destroy our currency and permanently damage our economy and financial system,” Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, said in his farewell speech on the Senate floor today. “Public awareness of what the Fed is doing is increasing while public opinion of the Fed is falling.”

Bunning’s views are reflected throughout the country, according to a Bloomberg National Poll that reveals deep skepticism about the Fed.

Americans across the political spectrum say the central bank shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence, according to the poll. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo.

[G The Resurrected]

running for congress, G?

Hell no!

[Beardo]

This is pretty tacky, considering Obama didn't even deserve it when he did get it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/obama-honors-nobel-winner-statement-about-himself