home

Thursday Night Open Thread

More of the same with budget talks. Votes delayed.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn accuser's lawyer is still in desperation mode, holding press conferences, trying to save the case. I'm more convinced than ever the DA has already decided to drop the charges.... otherwise someone would have muzzled this accuser and her lawyer. It's the most inexcusable, unacceptable behavior by a lawyer and client (who is a prospective witness and not a party) in a pending criminal case I've seen yet. We can expect the filing of the accuser's civil lawsuit shortly. But of course, this was never about money.

More interesting: Roy Black on why those accused of rape need more legal protections, including not having their names dragged through the mud while the accuser retains anonymity.

New season of Project Runway starts tonight, and it's eviction night on Big Brother.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< One Down, One To Go | GDP Growth Reports: 2nd Qtr 1.3%; 1st Qtr Revised Downward to 0.4% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Lobby for the rich and you get access (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:42:11 PM EST
    Pray for the poor and you get arrested.

    About a dozen religious leaders were arrested in the Capitol rotunda today after they refused to end their public prayers calling for "an equitable resolution to the debt ceiling debate," according to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which organized the protest. The leaders noted that default would be catastrophic, but current plans to raise the debt limit would still include "severe spending cuts to the programs and services that support the poorest and most vulnerable people living in the U.S. and around the world." link


    where is Donald's bong? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:58:54 PM EST
    Did you read about the (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:58:05 PM EST
    man who is facing 2 years in federal prison for making a protest bid on a sale of federal land for which he  did not  have the money?


    Parent
    Chains and Cages... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:25:46 AM EST
    the new candy, and everyday is Halloween.

    Parent
    Obama's plans to woe Independent voters (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:02:09 PM EST
    is really, really working. They just don't seem to know it yet. Maybe he needs to send them a memo.

    This shift is driven by a steep drop-off in support for Obama among independents. The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 20-24 among 1,501 adults and 1,205 registered voters finds that just 31% of independent voters want to see Obama reelected, down from 42% in May and 40% in March. Where Obama held a slim 7-point edge among independent registered voters two months ago, a generic Republican holds an 8-point edge today.

    This is consistent with a drop in Obama's approval among all independents. Currently, a majority (54%) disapprove of Obama's performance for the first time in his presidency. His approval among independents has slipped to 36% from 42% last month and 49% in late May. Pew

    Good thing independent voters don't need jobs and that I'm the only independent voter who values and receives Social Security and Medicare. I heard rumors from other polls that independent voters actually support Medicaid. Fancy that.

    It's relative (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    How are the republicans doing with independents.  People are down on both parties but you have to elect someone.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:05:34 PM EST
    The GOP is getting ripped to shreds almost everywhere, and only the hard core pitical junkies are up to see it. Tomorrow will be BRUTAL for the GOP.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    they did get around to naming a post office in Hawaii I think.

    Parent
    Sure it is relative (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:13:16 PM EST
    It is relative that 8% more would prefer to elect a Republican. Same poll: Prefer Republican 39% vs reelect Obama 31%.

    Seems they are down more on Obama. And he is losing ground fairly quickly at a time when he is gearing his deficit policies to woe them. Can't see where they are impressed.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:19:45 PM EST
    I am going to believe that his "adult in the room" posture is going to fail after tonight.

    apparently you don't know me well. My name is angryblackguy.  ABG for short. And my position from the start has been....

    Parent

    Is this fill-in-the-blanks? (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    Okay, then...

    Your position from the beginning has been...on your knees, and sometimes - just for fun - on all fours.

    Listen, maybe the politics is all you live and breathe, but here's the thing: regardless of whether it's the GOP plan, the Reid plan, the McConnell plan, the Gang of Six plan - regardless of who gets the brass ring in the debt ceiling joust - the American people are getting hosed, the economy will contract further, more people will lose their jobs.  I mean, it's not as if Boehner losing will mean that a great Democratic bill that will grow the economy and shore up the safety net is going to triumph.  Boehner losing just means we're going to get a Republican bill authored by Democrats - who will be proud they were able to out-Republican the Republicans.

    On what planet would any of this garbage ever be identified as "Democratic?"  Planet Obama, I guess; well, have at it, ABG. You, Obama and your knee pads will, I'm sure, be very happy.

    Parent

    I'm impressed (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    I couldn't find a way to say that politely :P

    Parent
    LOL - it took me a few minutes to (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:43:26 PM EST
    get there, but, honestly - he walked right into that one.

    Parent
    Obama uber alles ! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by smott on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    Yup we know you.

    Parent
    That's your name? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:04:42 AM EST
    Why do you identify yourself by mood, race and gender?

    Parent
    MO Blue, (none / 0) (#39)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:50:52 PM EST
    the pew poll might be something to consider, were there actually an animal in existence called an "independent" voter. no such beast walks the planet however, so i take that with a large bag of salt. the fictional "independent" voter is only a fantasy in the individual's mind, as they consistently vote either republican or democrat, election after election. this is just proven fact. but, people like to fancy themselves "independent", regardless of their actual voting patterns. it makes them feel special.

    also, i've not viewed the tabs (assuming they're available), to see what the poll actually consists of.

    Parent

    o.k. let's say you are correct and (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:45:49 AM EST
    no such beast as an "independent" voter walks the planet, Obama is gearing his austerity program to a non existent voter.  

    Since I now self identify as an independent, I know I'm special, as is every one else. My specialness is not derived by my voting pattern. But back to voting. When I self identified as a Democratic voter, I voted a straight Democratic ticket. Now as and Independent I do not. I can and do leave spaces blank, write in another choice or vote 3rd party Green if option is available rather than voting a straight ticket.

    Parent

    Are they down on the Dems? (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    or just Obama? This is really coming off as a game of chicken between Obama and the R's, with clips of Pelosi holding strong for Dem values, in my neck of the woods anyway.

    Parent
    Fox tonight was (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:16:58 AM EST
    beside itself with outrage over Pelosi's comments.  I thought she was great.

    Parent
    I got the impression (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:32:05 AM EST
    she's going to hold the Dem line as firm as she can for 2012. If she doesn't have to cave that is. Obama is not part of the Dem congress line, so here's hoping he doesn't phuck this up too badly. . . .

    Parent
    Well, she and Hoyer (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:28:35 AM EST
    have apparently gotten 100 percent Dem. agreement in the House not to vote for the Boehner bill but to let the Republicans thrash it out among themselves.  That's pretty good work.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    how they couldn't get that kind of cooperation when they had the majority, isn't it? ...It apparently is easy to do when your side probably won't win....

    cynical me.

    Parent

    the house (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    was not the problem.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    cuz they always had the cover of the senate....

    Parent
    the house actualy passed (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    some solid legislation that kept getting shot down in the senate.  Remember the public option?  That actually made it through the house bill.  Not to mention they also passed the dream act, and cap and trade, only to have them both die in the senate.  Just about every bill that did pass started in the house and got significantly cr@ppier in the senate, from health care, to the stimulus, to financial reform.

    At some point Nancy did say she was no longer going to pass bills until the senate did first, simply because she was sick of having house members stick their necks out for bills that never made it.  But it's not because they couldn't get their $hit together.

    Parent

    regarding the Roy Black article (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:39:57 PM EST
    i would need more information about how Black & the FBI et al. arrived at the conclusion that the "false" rape charges they cite were actually false

    i think we all understand why it's a good idea to protect the anonymity of people making rape accusations (i say "people" because i know that men are also victims of rape - rape is not unheard of during an armed robbery, a home invasion, etc. - & a man, for various reasons, might be even more relucant than a woman to report having been raped)

    Black's proposal tends to foster the notion that rape is a more heinous crime than, say, premeditated murder - do we argue in favor of anonymity for those accused of premeditated murder? should we? - if not, then what are we really promoting when we promote the idea of anonymity for people accused of rape?

    bias against alleged victims, & the difficulty of getting a rape conviction even when charges are brought, are two things that made it necessary to modify certain aspects of the law with respect to alleged victims of rape - why should accommodations to the special needs of alleged victims be translated into exceptional protection for alleged perpretrators? that is a sincere question, not a rhetorical one, but it's almost as if Black is saying that women who make accusations of rape are usually lying (& Black does veer rather close to saying that)

    if a man is mugged by another man in a dark alley & there are no witnesses, do we automatically call it a "he said/he said" case? if not, why not?

    According to the prison caste system.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:19:12 AM EST
    rape is a more heinous crime than premeditated murder...the only crime considered more heinous by cons is child molestation.

    It sure would make things easier if no one ever made false allegations that led to arrest, perp walk, and prosecution...but it happens.  And when it does, the accused never get their good name back.  That is injustice and victimization too.  Not on the level of being raped, but it is victimization none the less...I don't see why it would be so terrible to try and prevent such victimization and shield both the identity of the accuser and accused in rape cases...sh*t why not all cases?  If we can make it jive with a free press and open system that is, thats the rub.

    As for me, absent hard evidence or witnesses, every accusation of a crime is a "A" said/"B" said. In general we are far too quick as a society to equate accusation, arrest and/or prosecution with guilt.

    We should do all we can to protect rape victims, but not at the expense of innocence until proven guilty...it is too important and too sacred.

    Parent

    Also, I think the accusation of rape (none / 0) (#89)
    by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    weighs on a person's reputation long after a murder charge, assuming he is not convicted in both cases.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:04:40 AM EST
    But an actual rape where charges get thrown out because the accuser (rather, "victim" in an actual rape) gets smeared pre-trial, also has to live with it forever. Not only is her/his reputation in question, s/he has to live with the pain of actually being raped.

    A murder victim feels no pain after death.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    with some exceptions...OJ and Anthony come to mind.

    Though I guess that might be society's flaw more so than they systems, but the system can help.  Ending the perp walk would be a nice start.  I just don't know how to make shielding identities jive with open courts and a free press...it's a toughie.  

    A more responsible and ethical media would do wonders, but that ain't happening with the media looking for profits, and with what we buy as media consumers.

    Parent

    jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:58:15 PM EST
    regarding the DSK accuser. a civil suit may be her only to get some kind of justice, much like the O.J. civil suit, after he was acquitted. again, at no point has the DA stated a disbelief in her allegations, simply that so many issues swirl around her, he fears her credibility would be destroyed. not because her allegations have no merit, but because of issues having nothing whatever to do with the case at hand, but that a jury of regular folks will be swayed by, because regular folks just aren't all that bright.

    should this go to trial, DSK's attorney can certainly request a change of venue, citing the public statements made in the press by his accuser. it's what competent lawyers do.

    If she has no credibility (none / 0) (#101)
    by mjames on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    and she doesn't, how is a civil suit a road to justice? And how can a civil case have any legs when the D.A. refused even to prosecute? At least in the O.J. case the state prosecuted. I think the lawyer is desperately trying to keep the criminal case open because he has no civil case (and money in his pocket) without it.

    Regular jurors - any jurors - have the right to throw out all testimony of someone caught in a lie. So, if they find her to be a liar (and she is an admitted liar) and refuse to believe her, how is that not being bright? That's how they are instructed. She's lied about rape in the past. That has nothing to do with current rape claims?

    Cyrus Vance thought he had a real winner - he orchestrated the perp walk extraordinaire. I knew him as a legacy prosecutor. IMO, he wanted a conviction real bad.

    Parent

    I don't think lying... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    to get a green card or a cheaper apartment = lying about a rape though.  Huge leap.

    In this grifter country in a world of grift, regular folks gotta lie like that just to survive.  I don't think it makes someone uncredible across the board, or more prone to making false allegations of violent crime.  

    For instance, I've lied to cops & judges to get out of trouble or reduce trouble...I don't think that makes me an uncredible person, it makes me sane and human.  Ya do what ya gotta do in this shady world, and sometimes that means getting shady.  

    And if anyone ever asks what nation I belong too when I'm out at the rez buying smokes, my arse is a Poopsatuck through and through:)

    Parent

    she also lied about a prior (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    gang rape. A prior history of false sexual assault allegations is huge.

    Parent
    In context... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    of attempting to get asylum in the US though right? Not to shake someone down or get someone locked up.  

    It may make an attempted prosecution impossible, and I'm ok with that...but its a little different than making a false allegation to the police in the US.  It's an immigration thing.

    Parent

    Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kmblue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:38:20 AM EST
    has a great column Friday on the failure of journalism--one of my favorite topics.  Without a competent press, we are doomed.

    David Cameron has (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:23:25 AM EST
    A loopy advisor who thinks the economy could be helped by ending maternity leave, gutting consumer rights and closing job centres. Lost the link, it was on google. Why not put limits on the govt services the unemployed can use, too? After all, you should get what you pay for. These days, a survivors  tax for suicides might generate revenue.


    forget political polling for a second (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CST on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    How is the man upstairs faring?

    In the wide world of "I can't believe someone actually polled this", I found this lovely nugget:

    "Only 52 percent of Americans approve of God's job performance, the survey found, though just 9 percent disapprove."

    ""When asked to evaluate God on some of the issues it is responsible for, voters give God its best rating on creating the universe, 71-5," the polling report said. "They also approve of its handling of the animal kingdom 56-11, and even its handling of natural disasters 50-13.""

    Well then.  What I really want to know is, how do people feel God is handling the debt ceiling negotiations.

    stupid question time: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 08:52:52 PM EST
    Is a lawyer permitted to publicly say anything he wants in a situation like this, when under cover of advocacy for his client?  If his client is slandering, at what point does the lawyer become party to his client's slander?

    Nope, a lawyer can (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:58:53 PM EST
    be sued for defamation just like anyone else.  That is why most lawyers are terrified of speaking to the press.....

    Parent
    Interesting comment, as it seems to (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:14:03 AM EST
    me most lawyers love talking to the press.  Can't shut 'em up.

    Parent
    Not (at least many) lawyers for business clients (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    In general, they get paid to keep their clients' names out of the press.

    If anything, they don't talk enough and let bad press go unresponded to.  A simple denial seems more in vogue.

     

    Parent

    Well, and she also lied about how many (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    cell phone accounts she has.  Stone her!

    Parent
    She turned into a newt! (none / 0) (#111)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    I got better...

    Parent
    What does this mean? First, the "newt" (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    reference.  Also, does your comment meaning you are feeling better or you have more pithy rejoinders in store?

    Parent
    OK Got the "newt" reference. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    I feel (none / 0) (#119)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    pretty terrible. Had to put off my workouts re: doctor for a few days.

    Actually, I think this scene supports what you're saying, actually, which is why I referenced it."She's a witch!"

    Parent

    Good one. Hope you feel better soon. (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    What also floats? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    Very small rocks!

    And my personal favorite:

    But you haven't got a horse.

    Yes I have.  

    No you don't, you've got two halves of a coconut and you're bangin' them  together.

    Parent

    Quiet around here (none / 0) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:14:57 PM EST
    The GOP is having a bad day and not Obama, so no one wants to talk about it I guess.

    Not me.  This is fantastic.  Just saw Hannity almost have to break up a physical altercation on Fox.  The NRO is going nuts. Every news story on politics right now is focused on GOP distinction.

    The crazy is extracting it's price!

    If the dems wanted to set up a night which would highlight the crazy' they couldn't have had a better night.

    Yes, yes' I know. This is terrifying and they are playing without economy and whatnot.

    Of course that is all true,  

    But at least now people are seeing what the dems are up against.

    And, ABG, as you probably suspect (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    the Crazies' conflict--even if subdued for the time being--is about to burst open again during the primary season. It has been many years in the making....

    When a Speaker has to struggle for hours after an originally set vote, struggle to get the minimum number of votes simply to send it to a vote-down in the Senate, the only one of that whole group that must be secretly smiling is the heir-apparent, Cantor.

    Also: Where does Boehner get the goodies for the arms he has to twist...now that the Repubs have foresworn those dreaded "earmarks?"

    The House Crazies, indeed!

    Parent

    You are insane. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    You are gloating over the possible default, because the GOP will be blamed.  Taking the 1914 analogy further, you are like the middle aged veterans of earlier wars who were saying a war was just what Britain needed.
      Hey, maybe we can look forward to the public blaming the GOP for an increase in the nunber of shabby, smelly dumpster diving grannies too. The possibilities are endless.


    Parent
    I'm with ABG on this one (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:00:44 AM EST
    for once.  It's actually pretty refreshing to be entertained by the GOPers chewing on each other's legs.

    The Boehner bill isn't going anywhere. Its sole purpose is for these folks to put themselves on the record, and less importantly, to have something to "negotiate" with the Senate about.

    I note with great pleasure that not a single Dem., not even the most hopeless of Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler and Jason Altmire, will vote for it.  So it's an all-GOPer show.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:12:53 AM EST
    how substantially different will be the democrats' proposals?
    Either way, we get hosed.

    It's like watching the WWF.

    Root for whomever you wish, but both of them work for the same boss.

    Parent

    Agreed entirely (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:30:11 AM EST
    But the Republicans, individually and as a group, haven't got a single, solitary even remotely redeeming quality, so I enjoy watching them eat each other.

    Parent
    With (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    ketchup?

    Parent
    Everything's better with ketchup. :) (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    I am gloating (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:59:39 PM EST
    Over a meaningless bill that was never going to be the law.  

    You should be too.  Too bad.

    I am sure Obama will make a public statement tomorrow and you can bash that so itbis all good.

    The GOP was embarrassed tonight and u can't kill my buzz.

    Parent

    Boehner will find a way to pass something (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:00:35 PM EST
    My guess: he'll bundle in a repeal of the individual mandate.

    Parent
    President Obama is likely to (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    bail out Boehner.  Those gloating over the Republican mess are more likely to gain the president's ire than his applause. Just because Boehner stood him up at the altar, twice, and did not return phone calls does not mean he is really peeved, especially since they are on the same track.  Moreover, the president can commiserate with Boehner having difficulties with some in his party, although Boehner, unlike Obama, has the greater challenge since his people are have longer memories and shorter fuses.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    can always try again tomorrow because he has no control tonight

    Parent
    He might as well (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    Not clear to me why he's trying so hard to pass a faintly more moderate bill than his people want.  No Dems. will vote for it and the Senate won't pass it.

    Parent
    Maybe Boehner is (none / 0) (#47)
    by observed on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:10:14 AM EST
    panicking. How is any bill going to get passed?


    Parent
    no name calling please (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:22:35 PM EST
    ok, sorry. (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:50:12 PM EST
    Ah c'mon, observed...after all the strutting (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:12:36 PM EST
    and posturing and puffing that the Repubs have been doing about how to bring down the deficit & balance the budget--and,of course, how they bragged that they would refuse to allow action of the debt ceiling since shortly after the November election & throughout the summer--they are shown to be what they are. And, sly Harry Reid stands ready to go as soon as The Repub Crazies can get their act together.  

    While I'm sure that Boehner & all the Repub old guard will devise a way to patch Dumpty back together (sorta) for some sorta vote...but, the die is cast. The shambles that constitutes the Crazies were exposed with the inability of the Speaker to pull off the most important vote of his Speaker's tenure.

    It may be hardball politics; something, btw, that a number of people have stressed that Dems need to do. And, yes, it does provide a momentary chuckle for all of us who have winced at how these Crazies have tried to tear the country down for their own ends. There will be a deal or an essential resolution; President Obama will use all his power to prevent a default. That is one thing that you can count on.

    P.S. Loosen up, and enjoy the show for this evening.  ABG took a lot from you guys...he should get a few hours to dish it out after the Repub fiasco tonight.

    Parent

    Sly Harry Reid?? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    Good grief.

    Parent
    Kinda reminiscent of the times (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:35:19 AM EST
    the Dems went up against Bush after they achieved a majority, there were always folks who were sure that "Give em H&ll, Harry" had something up his sleeve that would turn things around and win the day rather than cave to Bush's demands. Over and over again, they discovered that the only thing that Harry had up his sleeve was his arm as the Dems caved. Next time around the same folks would believe that "Give em H&ll, Harry" had something up his sleeve {repeat cycle over, and over and over}.

    I guess folks retired that mantra and are now into sly Harry but the cycle has not changed.

    Parent

    Here is the thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 06:46:23 AM EST
    My point has always been that the focus on bashing the dems has always been a little out of proportion.

    Then we get a night like last night where every gripe any logical person could have withe the GOP was on display.  They were shown to be arrogant, stubborn, motivated by politics instead of the country, bitter, unreasonable and just generally all around not nice people.

    And on that night, a night where everyone, not just us lobs, should have been raining the righteous fire of anger upon them, I come here for liberals pointing their fingers at the GOP and screaming holy hell and we get

    (insert drum roll)

    Everyone talking about how much Obama and the dems stink.

    It was so demented as to be a littl funny actually.  Look, I am human. The stuff said here makes me question my beliefs every day. That's why I am here. I want to be forced to reexamine my position.

    But last I night I felt pretty good about what I have said here on a lot of levels.  Read through these comments, count the criticisms of and then, count the criticisms of the GOP.

    If there is an alien reading blogs to understand how the liberal mind thinks, he was very, very confused by TL last night.


    Parent

    Krugman writes very well (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 07:39:48 AM EST
    and often says what I believe better than I ever could.

    But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.
    ...
    Think about what's happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating -- offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion. link

    Obama not only rewards crazy, he promotes the same crazy agenda as they do.

    Donald has done such a fine job on this might as well use some of what he said so accurately:

    what the hell's to rejoice, ABG? House leadership disarray? We're five days from default. My, God, we should never have reached this point in the first place.

    And on this one, I do hold President Obama accountable, because it's long been a given that the GOP is chock-full of right-wing crackpots who are going to behave as crackpots always do, and he's made bat$H!+ crazy fashionable again amongst the white working class.

    Shame on him. But for this president's flaccid and impotent leadership during the first two years of his administration, a time of economic dislocation and social crisis, there would otherwise be no Speaker Boehner currently pleading vainly with the Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs caucus of his own party, while the full faith and credit of these United States hangs in the balance. link



    Parent
    Professor Krugman, concludes his (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    NYT article today, with the statement, .."The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you're not willing to say that, you're helping make that problem worse."   I, for one, am certainly willing to say that.

    However, I am not sure President Obama's is as willing, for as Krugman also states in the same article, ..."President Obama initially tried to strike a 'Grand Bargain' with Republicans over taxes and spending.  To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of GOP extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp sending cuts and only small revenues (we are not even allowed to say tax increase).  As..Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter's preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter's preferences."  Indeed, I am still worried that when all is said and done, the "Grand Bargain" will reappear, and if it does not, it will be due to the Republican extremists--and for that, I reluctantly thank them.   Just too much irony in the diet these days.

    Parent

    IMO some of the proposals in the debt bills (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    are structured to insure that not only will the "Grand Bargain" reappear but will make it easier to get cuts through Congress.

    The "Super Congress" with a fast track up or down vote and/or provision if deficit cuts didn't meet ambitious goals, automatic cuts of some kind would be triggered are ways to make sure that the cuts to safety net programs and taxes would happen while relieving politicians of the responsibility for these actions. It is a combination of the defense of DODDI (The other dude did it) and they did it to so don't blame us.

    Parent

    My guess is that the White House (none / 0) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    is still pining for the Grand Bargain at this point.  Of course, the "super congress" will be there in whatever passes---the only question is how structured and directive the safety net cuts will be.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    This is just tired (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    You sound like the people who pop up full of outrage when anybody criticizes the Israeli government and want to know "Where's the outrage?" about the behavior of the Palestinian terrorists.

    It's a leftish blog, ABG.  The insanity of the GOP is a given.  How "our" Dem. politicians, and particularly the president, respond to that insanity is what deeply concerns me and most of the other folks here.

    Parent

    Okay, which makes more sense: (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    being mad at your opponent for pushing bad policy, or being mad at your alleged ally, for pushing the same bad policy?  I can't change what the Republicans are doing, but when the so-called leader of my party, and its representatives in Congress, push Republican policy in my name, I'm not going to STFU and get in line and mind my manners and keep up appearances and do as I'm told and be spoken to and about as if I don't have the intelligence to understand what's being done.

    Because to do so only ensures that it will continue.  Change - you remember that, don't you?  That "new way" of doing things, that was going to bring light to the darkness of Bush rule, that was going to transform and set the country on a better path?  Change - it's not done with magic wands.  It's done with speaking out, and speaking up.  it's messy and it's uncomfortable because we are not automatons who march in lock-step just because someone wants us to and it might be embarrassing if others hear us doing it.

    This isn't Stepfod, ABG, at least for most of us; we resist indoctrination because it generally doesn't work out too well for those on the receiving end.

    Obama's getting pounded on here because he's pushing conservative policy that is virtually indistinguishable from what is being pushed from the other side of the aisle; if Obama wants to "lead" the Democratic Party, I don't think it's too much to ask that he do so from a Democratic point of view, working off a Democratic platform in furtherance of Democratic goals.  

    While this nation carries the motto, E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one - Obama needs to understand that that does not mean that we - the many - have made him The One, but that he is still now and will always be of the many; if he wants to keep his job, he needs to be mindful of that.


    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#132)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    bashes progressive and liberal democrats and kneels before the cretin republicans. And drools over Reagan.

    That doesn't bother you.

    It only bothers you when you seem to be floundering in igniting some enthusiasm amongst those whom Obama has betrayed.

    Parent

    Well, ABG thinks (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:42:02 PM EST
    Harry Reid was thinking about the debt ceiling and the GOP last December. I guess Obama is not the only 11 d chess master out there. Let's see if the markets agree about the great news. I am curious what the WH will do.


    Parent
    That is one nutty comment (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    mr. angry.

    The whole country is teetering on the brink, and you're happy that the republicans might come out looking even worse than the inept democrats.

    I've seen you ask, from time to time, why people on this blog tend to be more critical of Obama than the crazy republicans. The answer is, of course, that he is the president and many on this blog had had high hopes for him.

    But the question I would ask you is, why has Obama been so nasty and critical toward the progressive wing of the democratic party, and so accommodating and sickeningly friendly to the very crazies you portray yourself as despising.

    As Ta-Nehisi Coates noted in an op-ed in today's Times, when has Obama or his frontmen called on any republicans to "stop whining" or to "stop groping and groaning" the way he has  progressive democrats?  Has he referred to a "professional right"? Has he suggested that the crazy right-wingers like Boehner or Bachmann or Cantor "ought to be drug tested"? Those are the slurs and barbs he and his mouthpieces have hurled at people who had worked for him and believed in him, only to have those hopes dashed as they watch him continuously genuflect toward the likes of Ronald Reagan.

    Parent

    Silly rabbit (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    Tea Party is as American as "apple pie." So saith Obama.

    Parent
    Boooooooo (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:02:21 PM EST
    Of course this is terribly tragic.  You take your laughs where u can get em people.

    Orange Man Fail is fantastic on any occasion.

    Parent

    Well, it would be good news (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:09:41 PM EST
    if Obama blows off all bills and uses the 14th Amendment to pay the debts without any cuts.....

    Talk about stealing victory from the jaws of defeat......

    But a "grand deal" seems more likely....Now, let's avert our eyes and be glad the NFL lockout has ended.....

    Parent

    More likely a McConnell combo (w/Reid ) (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    And how will that benefit (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:53:02 PM EST
    the masses? I realize you have no actual skin in the game, but if the outcome of this looks to hurt more than it will help, will you admit it? Or just chalk it up to a brilliant play by your man? (the rest of us be d@mned)

    Parent
    hey, touche pas ma copine (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:33:37 AM EST
    christinep is not a fawning Obama troll - far from it

    she is a longtime Democrat, a strong Hillary Clinton supporter during the primaries, a civil interlocutor & a believer in realpolitik

    this is not addressed to you in particular, stray, but it does distress me when people misunderstand christinep in this way, even though she is more sympathetic than i generally feel toward some of the people who do tend to fit the description in the first line of my comment

    Parent

    well, perhaps she shouldn't (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:08:01 AM EST
    have posted some very fawning comments in regards to Obamab's PC's . . . she creates her own identity here and elsewhere by her comments. And lately, they haven't been that supportive of the 98%. But she has no prob engaging in positive support with ABG's perspective. That just doesn't work for me. In this day and age, I expect Dems to act like one and be on the front line. The more we coddle this Pres, the worse off we'll be, imo.

    christinep has to accept what she posts is who she's perceived to be. She doesn't seem too distressed with cutting the social safety net . . . what does that say?

    Parent

    speaking for me only ; ) (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:25:08 AM EST
    i think that christinep's entire point is that nobody knows yet what will be in the deal, & to that perception she brings a lifetime of negotiating & much sophisticated experience in that area

    & if that is her point, i do think it's true as far as it goes

    i have not found her unreasonable at all with respect to the dangers of Obama's having preemptively offered to put SS/Medicare on the table - i think that's a very pernicious precedent, personally - where i (& you) may differ with christinep is in the amount of optimism to retain in the face of Obama's PPUS

    i am also less of a party loyalist than christinep

    i will say, though, that she lives in CO, which has become a swing state

    i live in CA, so it doesn't really matter who i cast my presidential vote for (or if i cast one at all) - i will probably vote Green Party just to send a message

    but if i lived in CO i might very well vote for Obama - today's GOP crazies, plus the memory of 8 long years of Cheney/Bush, might seem to me reason enough

    even though i am not an Obama fan, it does matter which party is allowed to fill all kinds of posts in agencies (such as the EPA), & which party is allowed to appoint federal judges, etc. - this is a point that christinep has also made, & i appreciate her perspective

    as i do yours

    Parent

    Obama even with majorities in both (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:00:35 AM EST
    houses of Congress evidently did not think making appointments was important.

    Despite the lucky draw in the 4th Circuit, critics have long contended that Obama has not made judicial appointments a priority, a move that's bound to affect the staying power of his agenda. To be sure, the Senate has obstructed many of Obama's appointments thanks to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "just say no" strategy. But Obama has also failed to nominate judges to fill nearly half of the 100 vacancies on the federal bench. link

    Last February, a group of law professors sent a letter to Obama complaining about the slow pace of nominations, noting that by the same point in his first term, President George W. Bush had appointed nearly twice as many judges as Obama had. By the end of his second term, George W. Bush had appointed 40 percent of the judges in the entire federal judiciary.

    Democratic partisans are disappointed that Obama doesn't get agitated and make obstructionists pay a price. But the president bears plenty of responsibility. While you can blame the other party for not cooperating, the ultimate failure to fill key posts in important agencies is its own goal, an unforced error, a self-inflicted wound. You can't have nomination fights if you don't nominate people in the first place. The Senate has confirmed a lower percentage of nominees for judgeships than it has for prior presidents. But Obama has also attempted to fill a smaller percentage of openings than his predecessors. It doesn't always require an act of obstruction to keep a government post open.
    ...
    That's certainly the case at the Fed. Clinton administration veteran Brad Delong says, "The failure to fully populate the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is Obama's biggest unforced error."  I'd add some others: letting the health care debate drag on ad infinitum, not pushing for a larger stimulus, and naming Alan Simpson to co-chair the Simpson-Bowles Commission. But as Aaron Task and I discuss in the accompanying video, the blasé attitude toward vital economic appointments is turning into one of the great mysteries of the Obama presidency.

    Presidents have every incentive to hit the ground running. You only have the reins of government for so long, and political honeymoons are notoriously brief. During the long eight years of the Bush presidency, Democrats had plenty of time to think about who might make a good judge or Fed governor. Democrats tend to have deep policy benches and no shortage of people eager to serve.
     link

    BTW, FWIW my take is the same as stray's on the positions that Christine takes regarding Obama.


    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:19:42 AM EST
    thanks for that info, MO Blue

    i still don't think christinep is a lockstep Obot by any stretch - if you do, i guess you don't find my comments convincing

    that's ok

    i always appreciate what you bring to TL

    Parent

    I find a lot of your comments (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:31:33 AM EST
    both interesting and convincing. We do disagree on the subject of christinep. Haven't read any comment of hers that wasn't in lock step.

    Parent
    You probably should (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    go back and read some of ChristineP's comments....

    Parent
    i read most of them (none / 0) (#129)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    i guess we disagree on her perspective

    that's ok

    Parent

    Addams Family: A favorite Voltaire quote (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:57:31 PM EST
    One translation of Voltaire's foresight: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

    Thank you. It is humbling to witness an actualization of that sentiment. When we talk with a group that agrees with us, it is one thing; but, we've all witnessed the intensity of opposition for disagreement. Your statements in this thread, Addams Family, are "as rare as a day in June."

    While I talk about the importance of tolerance in debate, you practice it. You practice the hallmark of a democratic form of government...true tolerance of diverse opinions. You are an example of what we all say we want to be: One who practices what is preached.

    Parent

    You seem to be mistaken (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    We won't be paying the debt, just approval to incur more under that scenario.

    Parent
    Obama won't do that. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:03:02 AM EST
    Obama is not going to resort to any tactic whereby he acts alone -- even if he knows it's a positive action. No 14th amendment invocation. No trillion dollar coins. Nothing like that. There is literally no political antecedent for Obama acting alone in that manner. He will never do such a thing.

    Parent
    Well, given that he's executive-ordered (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 07:10:59 AM EST
    a number of things into being, I don't think it's so much that he has an aversion to acting alone as it is that invoking the 14th Amendment or using coin seignoriage to raise the debt ceiling doesn't accomplish the real endgame here, which is creating a mechanism to get at the safety net programs, reduce taxes on the corporations and shrink the parts of the government that actually help people.  

    He tried, and the original Deficit Commission failed, to do that last year, so here we are again, with both of the plans - Reid and Boehner - including such a commission.  The difference with Boehner's plan is that his commission is linked with some sort of trigger to the debt ceiling, while Reid's is not - one reason Obama supports it - maybe the main reason Obama supports it - even though it is considerably smaller than the Grand Bargain Obama has championed.

    When the choices are all Republican in their approach, we know, when all is said and done, the chest-thumping and self-congratulating and endless post-game analysis by the media and the pundits is going to be short-lived, once it becomes clear just how badly this is going to hurt the economy, and by extension, the American people.

    By the time we get to November, 2012, the question most voters may be asking is, "if these are my only choices, voting for either ticket is just participating in and enabling them to keep screwing me - and who just does that?  Not me."

    Parent

    According to Klein, this might be the (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:05:58 AM EST
    direction that Obama chooses:

    The White House is considering backing a combination of the Boehner and McConnell plans, reports Greg Sargent: "One idea being floated in multiple private discussions would in effect be a fusion of the Boehner plan and the original McConnell plan to transfer control of the debt ceiling to the President. The idea would be to preserve the joint commission that Boehner's plan sets up, and also preserve the spending cut targets in Boehner's plan. But rather than have those tied to two debt ceiling hikes, the President would have the power to hike the debt ceiling unilaterally in keeping with McConnell's plan, unless a two-thirds veto-proof Congressional supermajority disapproved of it (which wouldn't happen)...If the committee didn't reach the goals, automatic cuts of some kind would be triggered automatically." link

    As usual, Obama is siding with the Republicans to make this as painful as possible for ordinary people and set up not one but two ways to establish

    mechanisms to get at the safety net programs, reduce taxes on the corporations and shrink the parts of the government that actually help people.  

    Opting for draconian cuts in Boehner's plan and the Super Congress and triggers to make sure that the cuts to safety net programs and taxes are made.

    Parent

    So, what's the latest political (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:26:01 AM EST
    calculus here?  "Oh, sorry, Harry - this can't just be a Democratic operation, remember?  We have to show the American people that we're cooperating to get 'something done,' and it won't look like that if this is pretty much an all-Democratic solution - besides, we need the GOP to have ownership so that if the economy goes to hell in a handbasket, we don't get all the blame."

    Or does it finally make them see what we've been seeing since before Obama was elected: this man should not be carrying that (D) behind his name.

    Really, it doesn't matter; there are no Democratic solutions being offered or considered, and no matter what the final legislation looks like, we know it's going to hurt a lot of people, it's going to speed up the downward spiral in the economy, and it's going to lay the groundwork for generational poverty.

    ::banging head on desk::


    Parent

    Additional comments (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    on Obama's "systematic destruction of his own bargaining power" via Krugman.

    Bruce Bartlett:

    Obama has continued to reject any proposal that might give him leverage in the negotiations even as House Republicans appear unwilling or incapable of raising the debt limit before a default occurs

    .

    Yves Smith:

    It is hard to come up with words that are strong enough to describe what an appalling display of misguided ego, inept negotiating postures, bad policy thinking, and utter disregard for the public interest are on display in this fiasco. But as a friend of mine likes to say, "Things always look darkest before they go completely black."

    IMO not bipartisan but goal orientated. Obama doing anything other than what he is doing might jeopardize achieving his agenda. Can't have that can we.


    Parent

    Exactly right!!! (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    But Democrat voters and pundits and bloggers not wanting to grasp what is really going on and what he is angling for will miss the truth, just as they did during the HCR debacle :)

    Parent
    Obama to Reid (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    We can't tolerate "sly," Harry. We must have cuts that hurt real people. Remember if they have no pain, we have no gain. Think about our savvy friends Harry, they need more tax cuts.

    Parent
    Ick. (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:47:34 PM EST
    "people"...

    good god.


    Parent

    Train Wreck! (none / 0) (#44)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:01:50 AM EST
    Right on schedule.

    I don't think Congress can pass anything related to the debt ceiling in time. Not at this late date.

    When you play with fire, sometimes you get burned.

    Guess what, everybody: the Rs are really this crazy. It wasn't posturing. Maybe the people that voted for them, gave them money, failed to report on what they were really about (mainly, I think, because our inside-the-beltway journalists just didn't believe it) should have, I don't know, done something else ...

    Suffer, you SOBs. Everyone else will.

    Parent

    I think it does make it clear that the GOP (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:49:35 AM EST
    is too fractured to do anything on their own and needs Dem cooperation. That is worth noticing and a little bit of gloating. I enjoy the spectacle too.

    But the fact remains that Dems do not seem to be using that leverage to minimize the amount of spending cuts needed to strike a bargain. Or, better yet, get a clean debt ceiling bill.


    Parent

    Rand Paul "Just say no" (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    PAUL: Here's the other problem for conservative members in the House: the Tea Party doesn't want this. The conservative Republicans in the country, the grassroots doesn't want this. If you vote for the Boehner plan, it's not going to become law. It truly is dead on arrival over here. There's going to be an amalgamation of the Boehner plan and the Reid plan and they will force it through with a lot of Democrat votes and a few Republican votes so if you're going to send the Boehner plan over here, you're abdicating what you stood for in the last election.
    ...
    PAUL: The Boehner plan is not going to be law so why lose your principles by voting for it? link

    Something tells me that Boehner is not going to be grateful for Rand's help. HeHe{snark}

    He's right, though. (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:14:40 AM EST
    I don't know why Boehner is trying to pass this.

    Parent
    the GOP talking points are adamant that having (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    a plan 'on paper' is the far superior position. Why, I cannot say. Seems silly to me, but you see it over and over again in the righty comments here and elsewhere. "where's Obama's PLAN? We have our plan right here!!!! They don't even have a plan!"

    Having a plan everyone rejects is valuable in their eyes.

    Parent

    For once (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 10:23:38 PM EST
    drudge speaks the truth.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:17:22 AM EST
    Your (none / 0) (#56)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:01:51 AM EST
    intellectual stimulants: Drudge and Hannity.

    Parent
    I'm putting aside the political ugly tonight (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    And just reveling in the fact that tonight there was both "So You Think You Can Dance" and "Project Runway".

    One of life's wonderful moments.

    ----

    And I'm wondering why I'm getting a double space when I hit the "Enter" key.

    14th Amendment (none / 0) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:45:24 PM EST
    I'm reading Section 4 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Now, Clinton said he would invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit. However, on its face, the section legitimizes debt appropriated by Congress. So, I guess, in the realm of checks & balances, how can the executive branch raise debt that it's not "legitimizing."

    The debt in question (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:22:07 AM EST
    was absolutely "legitimized" by Congress.  Congress appropriates the money and authorizes the expenditures.  The president can't spend a dime unless Congress authorizes it.

    That's all the debt limit is, expenditures Congress has already authorized that have to be paid for.  That's why it's an absurd procedure no other country in the world uses.  Congress, in effect, has to authorize stuff twice, which leads to the kind of mischief the GOPers are trying to perpetrate now.

    Parent

    Further... (none / 0) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 11:46:15 PM EST
    the legitimate debt, is deemed by Congress. So, how can a sitting president over-ride the other branch? The only thing I can think of is the oath of office that says that the POTUS is sworn to uphold the Constitution, ergo, doing Congress's job if it fails to act (?)

    Parent
    DSK (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:00:12 AM EST
    Jeralyn, obviously neither of us has heard the tapes -- which are the latest point of contention and mismatched storylines. After seeing Diallo's (we can use her name now, I think) network TV interview I was marginally less trusting of her. She seemed to me like a storyteller and not a victim (this is a subjective determination).

    But, in framing the case, you seem to completely discount and ignore the fact that DSK hired a top-notch CIA-trained PR outfit to smear the accuser. That NY tabloids issued accusations that have since gone uncorroborated or substantiated. I don't quite understand that, even though I get your outrage at how DSK has been treated as the accused.

    There's a great deal of nonsense on the table, yes, but not all of it skews against DSK and not all of it has been generated by Diallo's lawyer.

    just found Susan Brownmiller's response (none / 0) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:25:06 AM EST
    to the Roy Black article, also at Salon

    maybe i missed something, but not much there, imo

    i was hoping Brownmiller's response would be (more) cogent, especially in view of her expertise in this area - & it would have been no great stretch to be more cogent than Black on this topic

    disappointing

    but here's a good comment on the article:

    Men worry too much about being accused of rape and too little about what they would actually do if they were raped themselves. No way was my ex-boyfriend going to report his rape to the cops. You don't understand how much courage it really takes to report a rape until it happens to you.


    agree with roy black (none / 0) (#68)
    by klassicheart on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:41:01 AM EST
    As for Obama....Peggy Noonan has it right...the Obama mystique has been punctured...he is really just a loser.  And no one likes a loser. No matter what happens on the debt ceiling, Obama looks incompetent and ineffectual.  But the real question is what happens to the economy....Obama and the Democrats failed to pass real stimulus when they had the chance...just like they failed to get a good deal with the extension of the Bush tax cuts...And no jobs....

    Peggy Noonan will never speak for me (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    Nor will I ever borrow any of her words for personal use.  I'm not happy with this President, but what I borrow from her on the subject will amount to jack.

    Parent
    She really is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    insufferable.

    Parent
    So it seems like the grand design (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    (as apparently Boehner is still working on 33 people - WTF?) is to show the House is unable to pass anything and then push the Reid bill through, which I'm assuming Boehner won't be able to whip against.

    Seems like a good job politically, but unless Reid is going to miraculously take out the cuts, the end result is still going to stuck.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    I think the way forward now politically is the Reid plan.

    I thought Obama's common sense statement this morning laid that out pretty well.

    But the fact remains that 2.5 trillion in cuts will hurt the economy. Let's hope they are delayed and deflected as much as possible.

    Parent

    Joan (none / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    at DK suggests that Obama hinted at wanting a clean debt ceiling bill.  Or the original McConnell plan (I wasn't able to listen to what the President said).  I would prefer all of those.  I am not sure what the likelihood of either passing is though.

    Parent
    Thanks for the rundown (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    Missed the speech

    Parent
    Her summary (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    is here.


    Parent
    Double thanks (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:22:34 AM EST
    He may have...in listening to it (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    and not reading it, I don't remember it being a very string hint. Focus was on what he thought could be accomplished with the bipartisan groups that have formed in the Senate.

    Parent
    I wish I had the budget axe... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    I might hurt the economy a wee bit, but I'd vastly improve our individual liberty, our national image, and ease the stain on our collective soul.  With maybe enough left over to ease the hurt for those most adversely effected by the toilet economy.

    Parent
    Housebreaking the puppies... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    young in the Belvidere School district...a new low.

    I seriously worry about parents who subject their middle school aged kids to this invasion of privacy.

    Where does the school district find (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    the money to do this?  

    Parent
    I expect the textbook lobby... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    is up in arms, and looking to poach lobbyists from the tyranny labs lobby.

    Parent
    Query: what is Juan Cole talking (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    about in the bolded phrase?

    The budget was being balanced by Clinton in the late 1990s, and the Republicans were the ones who created long-term structural deficits by slashing taxes on the wealthiest Americans (even Bush argued with Cheney over the second cut), by an unfunded prescription drug give-away to get votes from the medicare crowd, and by two unfunded wars, one of them illegal in international law.


    Cole is talking about Medicare Part D. (none / 0) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    One can argue the merits of Part D as it relates to seniors' drug costs. Good or bad, it is an expensive program, in no small part because the federal government is expressly forbidden from negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

    It is an insane provision, stuck in there by Bush to siphon tax dollars to Big Pharma, and kept in there by Obama during the health insurance reform negotiating for the same reason.

    Every insurance company in the country negotiates these costs, as does the VA, resulting in much savings. That Medicare cannot is so stupid and wasteful.

    Want to cut some Medicare costs? Letting Medicare negotiate the drug prices would save approximately $300-500 billion.

    Parent

    Any opinions here re revised Digby? (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    I don't like it.  Too verbose.  

    It's official (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    Juergen Klinsmann is the new coach of the U.S. men's national soccer team.

    Thank god for sports, the opiate of the masses.

    Not a surprising pick to anyone who follows the team.  A former German national team coach, he's been talked about for years as a potential US coach.

    Well well, Klinsmann -- (none / 0) (#136)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    now I'm interested again in US Men's Soccer.

    And there's once again hope our squad can move from being stuck on promising every four years to becoming a truly elite team that can go for the WC championship.

    Parent