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

[Great Rumbler]

Also, good thing this release will finally put the issue to rest:

Texas state legislator Leo Berman, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would require proof of citizenship from presidential candidates. It's one of many such bills in the states. And according to Sharon Guthrie, Berman's legislative director, it is still on the table, because the long-form birth certificate released by the White House today does not satisfy its requirements.

"What I've seen online, what they produced today, still says certificate of live birth across the top," she told me. And she's right.

But why isn't that just a nomenclature issue? Why does it matter?

"We want to see a 'birth certificate,'" Guthrie explained. "The one that we have that says 'birth certificate' is from Mombassa, Kenya, with his footprint on it. He has still not produced an American birth certificate."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/029157.php

smh

[Mandark]

I don't think that when liberals credit Nixon with doing liberal things, that they're trying to imply he did it out of the goodness of his heart. Whatever contempt he may have had for say, environmentalists, it's pretty moot since he DID wind up creating the EPA.

And in the end, isn't it really the results that matter? Does one really care if a president genuinely wanted to do whatever he could to help poor people, if in the end he did something like eliminating welfare?

Road to hell is paved with good intentions...

First, cause I'm apparently getting no click-through:

In the end, the EPA was a sort of confidence game. The new agency represented not a single new penny in federal spending for the environment. It did, however, newly concentrate bureaucracies previously scattered through vast federal bureaucracy under a single administrator loyal to the White House—the better to control them.

Second, my point is that presidents operate within the constraints of their times.  This is a premise constantly being rejected by the Greenwald/Taibbi set, who are only too happy to explain because Obama Policy X was once given lip service by Republican Y that it's inherently conservative and reveals Obama's True Self as a corporatist shill or whatever.

Hell, just a couple weeks ago you were calling Obamacare "far right wing" based on the same unlogic.


And now everyone's like "oh no Obama caved and made a concession by showing his birth certificate".  Which is amazing, cause when John Kerry ignored the swiftboaters, I don't remember the liberal grassroots praising him for "standing up to them".  If you want a strong daddy figure, go to a fuckin' leather bar.  Leave my politix geekery alone.

[Human Snorenado]

I dunno Mandark, I think the fact that NO ONE has gone to a federal ass poundin prison for the economic collapse other than a guy who (SHOCKER!) stole from OTHER RICH PEOPLE tells you all you need to know about this country's priorities.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-shocking-truth-about-the-birthplace-of-obamas-policies/2011/04/15/AF6qINpE_blog.html

explain that, mandork

[Mandark]

I dunno Mandark, I think the fact that NO ONE has gone to a federal ass poundin prison for the economic collapse other than a guy who (SHOCKER!) stole from OTHER RICH PEOPLE tells you all you need to know about this country's priorities.

There weren't many convictions for financiers whose speculative zaniness caused the Great Depression either, and that's in the period of US history with the most economic populism.

Personally, I just don't care that much about punishing the people responsible.  It seems way, way less important than blunting the immediate effects of the collapse and reforming the system so it's less likely to happen in the future.

Actually, I'm pretty leery of the torches 'n' pitchforks attitude towards this stuff.  As a way of blowing off steam, sure, go nuts.  There's a big problem with wealth distribution in this country and having a few symbolic villains can be cathartic.  But lots of people seemed to judge important legislation aimed at stabilization (TARP) and reform (FinReg) by the yardstick of pain inflicted on the "banksters".  That's a really dangerous way to think about things that are going to affect a lot of people.

[Human Snorenado]

Sure, but I am of the opinion that this is a class of people that are essentially sociopaths, and if they see no risk in certain behaviors they're going to keep repeating them ad infinitum.  Where if you just picked two of their names out of a hat, and nailed them to the NYSE with their balls in their mouths that might send a valuable message about fucking with other people's money.

Also, how did financial regulation of these companies/instruments work out?  Yeah...

[Mandark]

Also, how did financial regulation of these companies/instruments work out?  Yeah...

Wat u talkin bout?

[Phoenix Dark]

I dunno Mandark, I think the fact that NO ONE has gone to a federal ass poundin prison for the economic collapse other than a guy who (SHOCKER!) stole from OTHER RICH PEOPLE tells you all you need to know about this country's priorities.

There weren't many convictions for financiers whose speculative zaniness caused the Great Depression either, and that's in the period of US history with the most economic populism.

Personally, I just don't care that much about punishing the people responsible.  It seems way, way less important than blunting the immediate effects of the collapse and reforming the system so it's less likely to happen in the future.

Actually, I'm pretty leery of the torches 'n' pitchforks attitude towards this stuff.  As a way of blowing off steam, sure, go nuts.  There's a big problem with wealth distribution in this country and having a few symbolic villains can be cathartic.  But lots of people seemed to judge important legislation aimed at stabilization (TARP) and reform (FinReg) by the yardstick of pain inflicted on the "banksters".  That's a really dangerous way to think about things that are going to affect a lot of people.

To be fair, that didn't happen with Dodd-Frank

[Mandark]

To be fair, that didn't happen with Dodd-Frank

Oh?

[Phoenix Dark]

How does it make a crash less likely in the future?

[Mandark]

Nah, you explain.

[Phoenix Dark]

You first, Indy

[Mandark]

Seriously, though.  You made a pretty solid statement, and if you're that confident you should back it up rather than retreating into cutesy rhetorical judo.  For what it's worth, I'm actually interested in why you think that and I'll explain after.

[Oblivion]

Mandark: I'll address your previous post when I get home in a bit.

Until then, for everyone:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-lambastes-orly-taitz-ends-interview/

[Phoenix Dark]

Dodd and Frank have claimed it will prevent another "too big to fail scenario" when that's simply not the case. It doesn't limit institution sizes or break them up, and if a bank does fail there are no provisions that ensure tax payer money won't once again bail them out; hell republicans (and democrats) gutted a provision that would have ensured banks are taxed for the money that would go towards financing a liquidation process. Why not look at the Bankruptcy Code to ensure that never happens again? Unfortunately Dodd/Frank didn't do that.

The added transparency to derivative trading is nice, but contains loopholes that are easily exploitable. And the Volcker Rule, which could have helped discourage the risky proprietary money trading was heavily weakened.

What are your thoughts on the resolution authority measure?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/the-myth-of-resolution-authority/

The bill is not a steaming pile of shit that does nothing; if that was the case, Wall Street wouldn't be trying to get rid of it. But it certainly does not prevent another crisis. Does it blunt the immediate effects of a crisis? Perhaps I shouldn't have bolded that part, because I'm not sure it does

[Mandark]

I don't have an opinion on that stuff cause I don't understand it, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

That's not a knock.  I doubt any of the frequent posters to this thread have read this, or have the background to make sense of it if they did.  So we're in this weird epistemological territory of figuring out who to trust.

During the legislative debate I wound up deciding that the guy at Economics Of Contempt knew his stuff substantially better than most of the better-circulated analysts, in part because he caught them out pretty frequently, but also because it's his area of expertise, he's able to do analysis pieces without devolving into polemic*, and because I never caught him using those bits of rhetorical sleights-of-hand that I think I've learned to spot fairly well.  He wound up being a very strong proponent of the final bill, and so far that's good enough for me.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Not to say polemics can't be awesome, but if a writer goes to the good-n-evil language every single time it's generally a sign that they're not a great choice to explain the boring minutiae of an issue.

[close]

[Phoenix Dark]

I think that's a good point, and a solid disclaimer for everyone here. I would just point out the question of whether "too big to fail" was addressed in the Dodd-Frank bill is certainly something we can debate, and from what I have read it doesn't.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/josh-rosner-dodd-frank-is-a-farce-on-too-big-to-fail.html#Archives

You put me on Economics of Contempt earlier this year iirc; I don't read it religiously but it's a very good blog.

edit: i'm heading to bed, will respond in morning unless Beardo makes an appearance

[Oblivion]

I don't think that when liberals credit Nixon with doing liberal things, that they're trying to imply he did it out of the goodness of his heart. Whatever contempt he may have had for say, environmentalists, it's pretty moot since he DID wind up creating the EPA.

And in the end, isn't it really the results that matter? Does one really care if a president genuinely wanted to do whatever he could to help poor people, if in the end he did something like eliminating welfare?

Road to hell is paved with good intentions...

First, cause I'm apparently getting no click-through:

I DID click the article, SIR! 

...though I just happened to miss that for some reason...

Second, my point is that presidents operate within the constraints of their times. 

I agree.

This is a premise constantly being rejected by the Greenwald/Taibbi set, who are only too happy to explain because Obama Policy X was once given lip service by Republican Y that it's inherently conservative and reveals Obama's True Self as a corporatist shill or whatever.

Hell, just a couple weeks ago you were calling Obamacare "far right wing" based on the same unlogic.

Right, I was specifically referring to the individual mandate, forgetting all the other goodies that were included in the plan.

Two things though:

1. Obama supporting something that was given lip service by a republican being inherently conservative? Isn't it the exact opposite what you claim the Greenwald/Taibbi set try and imply?

2. Just because something is liberal by today's standards, doesn't mean it would be liberal by historical standards. Take the tax rates. Taxes on the richest top 2% is 35%, and raising it to something as seemingly inconsequential as 39% is considered communism nowadays. Even though historically, the highest tax rates have gone as high as 94%.   

And now everyone's like "oh no Obama caved and made a concession by showing his birth certificate".  Which is amazing, cause when John Kerry ignored the swiftboaters, I don't remember the liberal grassroots praising him for "standing up to them".  If you want a strong daddy figure, go to a fuckin' leather bar.  Leave my politix geekery alone.

I praised him for ignoring the swiftboaters.*

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*okay fine, I didn't.

[close]

[Mandark]

1. Obama supporting something that was given lip service by a republican being inherently conservative? Isn't it the exact opposite what you claim the Greenwald/Taibbi set try and imply?

Huh?  What?

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama is probably a liberal personally, but governs from a moderate position on most issues. The health care law, probably his crown achievement/legislation, features a mixture of liberal and conservative ideas. Many of the more market based ideas such as the individual mandate are conservative ideas, as Mitt Romney explained for us back in 08 republican debates. Government subsidies to combat rising health care costs? That's a more liberal position.

Cap and trade is a proposal rooted in market based principles. Today it's considered rapidly liberal.

Then of course you hear Obama's Medicare speech and it seems like yea, dude's totally a liberal. But whenever the budget is done, its final results won't be liberal; they'll probably be center-right, and not because Obama is secretly a republican but because that's all he can do right now.

[Human Snorenado]

I cannot remember the last time a real issue was discussed in American politics - constant fucking minor side shows blown out of proportion i assume so no one notices how badly of a cocking 98% of the population are getting.

America, fuck yeah, etc etc

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I cannot remember the last time a real issue was discussed in American politics - constant fucking minor side shows blown out of proportion i assume so no one notices how badly of a cocking 98% of the population are getting.

That's by design of course.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I know that it is about a year and a half out but here is an article that expresses that New Hampshire GOP supporters are having a hard time getting excited about the prospective GOP candidates.  That could mean that whoever gets picked will have a sizable portion of the Republicans pissed off at the decision, resulting in some of them voting for a third party, Democrat, or staying home.  Especially if it is someone like Romney where teabaggers will throw a fit, causing some unrest.

Edit: It was talked about as to why I thought Obama was better than that for showing his birth certificate.  Most birthers are Republicans.  By Obama showing off his birth certificate, all he did was placate a group who was never going to support him in the first place.  It wasn't like birthers would say "Oh, well, i guess he sure showed us!  Obama 2012!!!"  Unsurprisingly, few were left satisfied with some people saying "where's the real birth certificate?" and some are now pushing further, wanting Obama to show off his grades.  I'd venture to say that the vast majority (90%+) of birthers are dyed in the wool racist fucks who think that voting for a black man is voting for a black man to put his BBC in their chaste fair haired teen daughter's ass.  These people were never worth placating.

The Kerry situation is completely different but I too thought that it was best that he never bothered to address it.  The birth certificate and the Swift Boat for Truth or whatever the fuck that was called is just red meat for Republicans and right leaning independents.  These Democrats only stand to lose face if they do something about it.

[Mandark]

Republicans are going to vote for the Republican candidate.  Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate.  When it's general election time you've got about six months of candidates and proxies on both sides reminding you about the fundamental differences between the two parties and their supporting coalitions.

You think right wingers are going to pass up a chance to kick Obama out of office?  He was born in Kenya, ferchrissakes!

[Phoenix Dark]

There's no way republicans stay home/vote third party instead of voting for Mormon boy. They're going to be voting in droves

[Human Snorenado]

I honestly think that after almost four years of rabid stupidity in lieu of taking anything seriously, anyone with half a brain and who can admit that we do, in fact, NEED A GOVT. FOR THINGS won't be able to vote Republican.  My uncle, for instance, who for most of his life had been a Republican but voted straight dem in 2008 for the first time is still disgusted with the party and won't vote for them at all.

[Phoenix Dark]

Depends on the economy. Obama hasn't done anything to guarantee a win; people simply aren't happy. Early polls are pretty worthless, but there was an interesting one from Nevada last week with Obama at like 54% of the Latina vote in Nevada - compared to 70% in 08. Hispanics don't have many concrete reasons to support Obama in droves this time...err well outside of the fact that the other party hates their guts

[Human Snorenado]

After Mittens and the rest of the 7 Dwarfs spend months during the primaries trying their darnedest to prove "I hate non-white skinned people the most, PICK ME!" I doubt that will be an issue.

[Joe Molotov]

I cannot remember the last time a real issue was discussed in American politics - constant fucking minor side shows blown out of proportion i assume so no one notices how badly of a cocking 98% of the population are getting.

That's by design of course.

By the Illuminati.

[Phoenix Dark]

[youtube=560,345]n9mzJhvC-8E[/youtube]

the intro

edit: michelle obama holy shit

edit: ahaha Obama trolling Trump 

[Phoenix Dark]

Was going to edit the above post, but this deserves it's own post:

The president of the United States just played Ol Dirty Bastard at the White House Correspondents Dinner. I can die now knowing I've seen everything there is to possibly see

[Great Rumbler]

Comedian in Chief

[BlueTsunami]

It looked like Trump wasn't laughing at the initial joke. Total and complete backfire on his bullshit.

Fox dig was perfect

The whole Trump segment was brilliant

[Mandark]

McCain's funnier.

[Phoenix Dark]

Oh definitely, dude seems more lively whereas Obama's probably like "do I have to go? I'd rather finish this D&D game with the budget guys." But Obama was funny tonight.

And I doubt McCain would rock some ODB

[Mandark]

Trump's tight-lipped smile as he tries to play the good sport. 

Yeah, Obama's not humorless or anything, but he doesn't have the delivery that McCain and (weirdly) Bob Dole have.  Decent material which was a lot funnier cause the president was saying it and a bunch of the targets were in the room.

I'm tempted to go over to The Corner and read them qqing about it, but I probably shouldn't.

[Oblivion]

Trump had the exact same expression throughout the ENTIRE video, holy shit.

"If your hair gets any whiter, it'll be endorsed by the Tea Party"

[Dickie Dee]

"Donald Trump is here tonight. Now, I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate to rest than The Donald. Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?"

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

What a little bitch

[Great Rumbler]

What a little bitch

What a stuffed shirt.

[Phoenix Dark]

obama's philosophy was clearly on some "See i'm usually non-violent, positively vibin, but every now and then you gotta a nikka wanna try ya" type shyt.

fukk donald trump as a man, a business and a corporation. his kids? fukk them too. sarah palin? fukk her too. my fo-fo make sure all bristol's kids don't grow

Trump kept poking him and obama finally snapped

http://forums.projectcovo.com/showthread.php?t=3506431
 

[Oblivion]

I don't think the American people are having a good time with $5 gas. ... I was thinking to myself as they were doing this, you know, the American people are really suffering and we're all" having fun at a gala.

Then why did you go?!

[Boogie]

Okay, just starting to watch the White House Correspondent's dinner now...

and of course, five seconds in, the President is introduced via Hulk Hogan's "I am a Real American" theme.

I am losing my shit here....

edit: HOLY SHIT OPTIMUS PRIME..... 

Is this going to be the best thing on the internet I've seen since Colbert roasted Bush right in front of him, Bore?

[Oblivion]

It's up there with Colbert, for sure. It's hard to decide which one's better though.

[Boogie]

aaand finished.  Yeah, that was great.  Seth Meyers was solid.  10x better than Leno, anyway (though that's a given)

[Mr. Gundam]

The President is making an unannounced statement this late on a Sunday evening? What the hell is coming?

It's apparently related to national security and has nothing to do with Libya. My wife thinks they got Bin Laden, I guess we'll have to wait and see what it is.

[Diunx]

He is going to announce that episode 3 of game of thrones is out on the intarwebs.

[Human Snorenado]

My guess is that he is going to release his grades

[Mr. Gundam]

Sounds like they've got Bin Laden's body.

If that's true, someone has much better chance of winning in 2012.

[AdmiralViscen]

Can't wait to see trump take credit

[Stoney Mason]

Appearing in the Green Room, along with Arianna, Chrystia Freeland and David Stockman, after Sunday's taping of "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour, Will dismissed at the idea that Trump could have a political future.

"He has no future in politics," Will said. "He's a buffoon ... . He's going to come out of this looking like what he is: an overweight, under-educated, silly man."

[Stoney Mason]

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[Oblivion]

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

People are going to forget about this within a month but it should be a nice trump card if some Republicunt accuses Obama of being soft on national security.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105030005

[Mandark]

Can't get myself to be too angry at that.  Credit-hogging's a big part of politics, and with Donald Trump still in the picture, this isn't even one of the nuttier examples lately.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/george-w-bush-obama-ground-zero_n_857278.html

i'm digging this "post links instead of quoting entire story" shit

[Phoenix Dark]

where politics and reality clash
http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/03/halperins-take-mistakes-were-made/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Looks like I'll be siding with Donald Rumsfield here. There is no "getting your story straight" with a wave of a magic wand - it takes awhile for all the details to become fully clear. Given the 24 hour nature of the news it would be impossible for them to simply wait until the team was debriefed, then address the media; if they had Halperin would write the exact same article, but replace this point with one about the "slow" WH response to rampant speculation.

On Bush...seriously? Obama's speech was pretty clear about this mission being four years in the making - ie of course the previous administration played a part. Why should he go out of his way to praise others when if the mission failed, Obama would get ALL the blame. And the suggestion that inviting Bush to Ground Zero was some attempt to save face is just stupid.

How exactly would he control the rampant Pakistan speculation? Jesus Christ this man is dumb. Hey Halperin, Bin Laden is dead, a year from now he'll still be dead and no one will remember the petty gripes you brought up to "even out" the glowing coverage.

[Brehvolution]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/158979-cantor-private-healthcare-rationing-better-than-governments

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Tuesday that private healthcare plans ration care for profit but that consumers should be free to buy whatever coverage they can afford rather than depend on government rationing.

In remarks to the College of American Pathologists, Cantor warned that Democrats' healthcare reform law mandates benefits that are too generous and will bankrupt the country as the government ends up having to offer ever increasing subsidies. That can only lead to government rationing, he said.

These fucking guys. Who votes for these guys?

[Joe Molotov]

where politics and reality clash
http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/03/halperins-take-mistakes-were-made/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Looks like I'll be siding with Donald Rumsfield here. There is no "getting your story straight" with a wave of a magic wand - it takes awhile for all the details to become fully clear. Given the 24 hour nature of the news it would be impossible for them to simply wait until the team was debriefed, then address the media; if they had Halperin would write the exact same article, but replace this point with one about the "slow" WH response to rampant speculation.

On Bush...seriously? Obama's speech was pretty clear about this mission being four years in the making - ie of course the previous administration played a part. Why should he go out of his way to praise others when if the mission failed, Obama would get ALL the blame. And the suggestion that inviting Bush to Ground Zero was some attempt to save face is just stupid.

How exactly would he control the rampant Pakistan speculation? Jesus Christ this man is dumb. Hey Halperin, Bin Laden is dead, a year from now he'll still be dead and no one will remember the petty gripes you brought up to "even out" the glowing coverage.

I especially like the fact that he thinks speculation about Pakistan could have been controlled by anyone.  Did anyone who follows the news have the exact same thought when Pakistan was first mentioned?  How can you possibly control that?

Clearly they should have said they found him in Syria instead and that he had an AK-47 in both hands and a knife between his teeth, then paraded his body through the streets of New York.