Sincerely: Matt, voice of my generation. (I enjoyed this on both sides, btw. But that part, which begins very loftily and then goes right for the core of the matter... it just made my day. Ha.)

I think "tea bagging" is slang for a gay men's sex act. Is that correct? Larger question is why are democrats trying so hard to discredit the tea party protests? They are spontaneous and they do stem from a high level of frustration by self reliant people that the government is taking everything they have and giving it to people who are not reluctant to take handouts. If the discredit effort is successful, that just increases the alienation of the minority, no? Drudge links to a statement by the governor of Texas mentioning secession from the union. Democrats dont want red states to secede from the union, do they? If that happened, who would the democrat regime use to kill impoverished somali teenagers? ------------------- http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics...says_texa.html Speaking with reporters after a tea party rally in Austin today, Gov. Rick Perry said Texas can leave the union if it wants to. "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that," Perry said. "My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've

First off, I'd like to say that I think my taxes should be higher. I live in subsidized housing (i.e., a house with a mortgage that the gov. allows me to deduct -- a benefit denied to renters). In fact, I live subsidized on everything thanks to a second mortgage (known as home equity loan) which I also deduct and which I am free to use to buy imported Tequila, cars, boats, and/or get government-subsidized cash from the ATM machine. Today, I accidentally went to a tea event at our County Government Center. I was actually at the Gov Cent to attend our annual press conference on Nuclear Weapons spending. Our county spends $167,000,000 annually to maintain nukes; so we ask local political leaders, educators, doctors, homeless advocates, etc. to speak on what they would do with that money if we didn't waste it on WMDs. Across the plaza, I was surprised by the size of what I first viewed as a savage mob of furious white people -- the Tea People. I decided not to be judgmental, however, and instead attempted to figure out what their real grievance was. I guess it's simply their perception that the government is preventing them from becoming wealthier. Lots of signs about "socialists" and lots of

"But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

I can understand Perry's anger: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...h_your_tea.php With only 71% of the country behind the President, 24 hours ago, clearly it's time for mass seccession. Also, teabagging is only gay if both people are men.

You can immediately tell anyone dishonestly trying to discredit the tea parties by their use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe them. It's so incredibly weak that it actually makes them look sillier than those they deride. It immediately reminds one of those who use the hysterical term 'christianists'. Anderson Cooper himself said this week it was very hard to talk when you're teabagging, to which one can only take him at his word. The same people who remained mum when Barnie Frank had an underage boy toy rental running out of his basement now try to project sex terms onto people making honest political critiques. Change you can believe in.

You can immediately tell anyone dishonestly trying to discredit the tea parties by their use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe them. It's so incredibly weak that it actually makes them look sillier than those they deride.

I agree that the joke is wearing thin.

The same people who remained mum when Barnie Frank had an underage boy toy rental running out of his basement now try to project sex terms onto people making honest political critiques.

Can you offer the gist of the critiques? What lasting impact do you expect?

Tea bagging is wiping your private parts on, say your boss's keyboard. Not really gay.

Quoting harkin: You can immediately tell anyone dishonestly trying to discredit the tea parties by their use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe them. It's so incredibly weak that it actually makes them look sillier than those they deride. It immediately reminds one of those who use the hysterical term 'christianists'.

What's dishonest is terms like "compassionate conservative," "Healthy Forests Initiative," "Clear Skies Act," "PATRIOT Act," "I'll be a uniter, not a divider," "Democrats want the terrorists to win," "the Supreme Court's shutting down of the Florida recount gives me a mandate to govern," "the United States does not torture," and saying "I'm a good Christian" while launching a war built on lies. Not to say that you're Bush's biggest fan, but just to give some examples of what political dishonesty really is. If you would like more, please check Google News for anything said lately by Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh, Norm Coleman, or Sarah Palin. Or spend some time reading, say, Michelle Malkin or RedState. Or turn on Fox News any minute of any day. So, no, calling a teabagger a teabagger is not dishonest. It may be juvenile, the joke may be getting old to some ears, it may be hard

Oh, and P.S. ...

Quoting harkin: Anderson Cooper himself said this week it was very hard to talk when you're teabagging ...

... thanks for the search tip. Found it.

I honestly thought "teabagger" was what they were calling themselves. I also had no idea the phrase had sexual connotations. I thought the joke was about weed. I have edited my earlier post to reflect my new understanding, FWIW.

It's funny how many people don't know what teabagging is.
Here is where I heard it first, from the liberals' favorite sluts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGNWCwCrUKk I suspect everybody who is familiar with this meaning, learned it from the show.

Quoting JoeK: It's funny how many people don't know what teabagging is.
Here is where I heard it first, from the liberals' favorite sluts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGNWCwCrUKk

I suspect everybody who is familiar with this meaning, learned it from the show.

No way, Joe. John Waters had led the way long before Carrie Bradshaw and co. offered us a tepid brew. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi9hgqZr6fs

Quoting AemJeff: No way, Joe. John Waters had led the way long before Carrie Bradshaw and co. offered us a tepid brew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi9hgqZr6fs

Yeah, sounds like something that would come from the gay scene. BTW, I saw that movie, but didn't remember the scene until I saw the clip.

Rhetorical game playing. Does Mr Farrell not remember the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. President Bush's I will not raise your taxes pledge; then he did and subsequently lost his reelection bid. But I'm sure that was fine with Mr. Farrell as he freely admits his bias and while it may take a while for President Obama's Orwellian doublespeak, as was noted by Mr. Welch not to long after this little snippet, to register with voters it will eventually be noticed. There is a growing list of President Obama habit of saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKWGipe2do0&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1n2v...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6C1...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y86RS...eature=related

Quoting harkin: You can immediately tell anyone dishonestly trying to discredit the tea parties by their use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe them. It's so incredibly weak that it actually makes them look sillier than those they deride.
...

Just no. If you are so bloody dumb that you don't understand the ridiculous, contradictory connotations of the language you're explicitly trying to promote as public trope, then constant public ridicule on that exact point is exactly what you should expect. And exactly what you would deserve.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think "tea bagging" is slang for a gay men's sex act. Is that correct?

No.

Larger question is why are democrats trying so hard to discredit the tea party protests? They are spontaneous ...

They are self-discrediting. All democrats (and thanks for the small "d" by the way) and liberals are doing is documenting how utterly hapless they are. And you're even more wrong about them being spontaneous. They have been coordinated and promoted non-stop by Fox News, Clear Channel, PJTV, many local hate radio stations (e.g.), prominent Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck, corporate lobbying firms like Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity, top right-wing bloggers like Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, and Erick Erickson. and on and on, up to and including the RNC.

If the discredit effort is successful, that just increases the alienation of the minority, no?

Perhaps. Perhaps it also helps some people come to their senses about the rabbit hole the far right wants to lead them down.

Drudge links to a statement by the governor of Texas mentioning secession from the union. Democrats dont want red states to secede from the union, do they?

Heh. Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies. But in all seriousness, no. To

Quoting Usernumberone: Tea bagging is wiping your private parts on, say your boss's keyboard. Not really gay.

My understanding was that it was more specific than this, and specifically involves wiping your balls on someone's face. It turns out only getting it in the mouth counts, though, which raises deeply troubling questions about the legitimacy of all those frat pranks. If I were a conservative and wanted to get angry about people linking me to homosexuality via ambitious double entendre I'd go for the Santorum thing instead of this. That wasn't even trying to be funny, it was just petulant. Plus all these tea baggers seem to want to play the victim card instead of taking their lumps like a man.

Quoting Lyle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKWGipe2do0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1n2v...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6C1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y86RS...eature=related

Could this be the realization of Michael Steele's dreams of a hip-hop friendly conservative message?

I'm pretty sure all those guys voted for Obama.

Quoting AemJeff: Just no. If you are so bloody dumb that you don't understand the ridiculous, contradictory connotations of the language you're explicitly trying to promote as public trope, then constant public ridicule on that exact point is exactly what you should expect. And exactly what you would deserve.

More on the tea-baggers just not getting how language works from Ed at GinAndTacos.

Every time I hear someone say that they've come to a particular policy position with the help of the political philosophy of Vaclav Havel, I preemptively put my head in my hands. Havel is certainly an admirable figure, but he's a million times better dissident than he is a politician. The Husak regime after 1968 really had no ideology except arbitrariness, cynicism, and stupidity, and it was extremely vulnerable to the the sincerity and intelligence of the dissident movement. Fighting stupidity and lies in a country like the US is a bit more complicated, since the liars doesn't really care how smart or sincere you are -- in fact, they'd very much like to coopt you. There's a reason Czechs are generally tired of Havel, and it's not just that he's an unimpressive speaker; it's because his ideas about living in truth and the politics of love triumphing over the politics of hate and lies are not very well suited for the post-communist political scene. But they've become very useful for people over here who like to assign other enemies the role of the Czechoslovak communists and imagine themselves

Quoting kezboard: Every time I hear someone say that they've come to a particular policy position with the help of the political philosophy of Vaclav Havel, I preemptively put my head in my hands.

Amen!

Awesome link. This is worth having out there for everybody to see:

Did Sean Hannity get out from behind a desk and attend the immigration amnesty rally in Los Angeles to which 500,000 people showed up last year? Did Fox News dedicate around-the-clock coverage and nearly unbearable homerism to the Iraq War protests which over a million Americans attended (150,000 in San Francisco alone) five years ago? Did Glenn Reynolds claim that government needs to Listen Up and Get the Message and Pay Attention and all this shit when 800,000 people (NYPD estimate; protesters claimed over a million, but such estimates are inevitably high) marched in New York City in 2004 to protest the RNC? Do any of these hacks wax patriotic about the millions upon millions of people who did something real and substantive in electing the new President - not standing around bitching, not listening to talk radio millionaires give speeches in a park amidst misspelled, homemade signs - last November? Of course not. Why? Because “those people” aren’t Real Americans. See, Real Americans means white people. Angry, middle-aged, rural or suburban white people.

I'd be curious to hear why the former demonstrations of much greater

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Awesome link.

Glad you liked it. I only just came across that site a few weeks ago.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I'd be curious to hear why the former demonstrations of much greater size weren't considered the will of the people (let alone the landslide election and the current high popularity of the President and his policies) but somehow these teabagging protests which amount to what, 5,000 people per state, are so significant as to be worthy of around the clock coverage.

Even leaving aside the reality that a good part of most crowds were AGENTS OF ACORN, uh, I mean lib-bloggers looking for lulz, I think you might have an extra zero in your number there.

OMG!

A bare minimum of 25,650 people turned out for tea party protests across the country today, according to news estimates, a survey of reports from local newspapers, TV affiliates, and wire services shows.

All of that nationwide for the equivalent of a badly-attended Obama campaign rally? In one small city?

Pathetic.

But to your larger point, yeah. Damned liberal media strikes again.

I heard estimates of roughly 100,000 earlier and was too lazy to look up the actual number (opening up a whole nother tab and all) so I figured I'd be generous. The bigger question is whether there were Greek columns at any of these parties! ;-) Remember that?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I heard estimates of roughly 100,000 earlier and was too lazy to look up the actual number (opening up a whole nother tab and all) so I figured I'd be generous.

Yeah, that's probably a better guess (the 25K figure, you'll note, was called the "bare minimum"). Still, 100K nationwide is not 5K/state (unless you're saying that only 20 states held rallies?). No matter. What's more fun is to guess what number Glenn Reynolds will try to push in the next few days, in the fun new game that's sweeping the nation: "Estimate the size of Putz's balls!"

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The bigger question is whether there were Greek columns at any of these parties! ;-) Remember that?

LOL! No Dorics. Just dorks. Well, maybe they got close. But never mind that. Remember, it's B Hussein Arrogant Osama X who likes columns, not Real Americans.

I think it was on Ezra Klein's blog where he said something like "keep in mind that 100,000 would only be 2,000 people PER STATE." But I believe his numbers were pre-event projections so I generously inflated that. Either way, take the real number and divide by the total population and prepare to laugh (or cry at the ridiculous coverage.)

Quoting JoeK: Yeah, sounds like something that would come from the gay scene. BTW, I saw that movie, but didn't remember the scene until I saw the clip.

For some reason, this made me think of JoeK.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If that happened, who would the democrat regime use to kill impoverished somali teenagers?

The source of your talking points is showing, darlink. (h/t: maru)

Quoting harkin: You can immediately tell anyone dishonestly trying to discredit the tea parties by their use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe them.

Someone from your side appears not to have gotten your memo. As I said to D'Steve: self-discrediting. And not just for being teabaggers, either.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: gee, it's so interesting to hear from someone who endorses the general philosophy that caused this whole mess. please tell me more about how you're going to get me my job back. i notice matt is also completely backpedaling from his position months ago when he was boldly challenging everyone to point out which dereg action contributed to this....all i will say is - thank you simon johnson finally, why why why do libertarians get any say in anything anymore? YOU WERE WRONG.

As far as I can tell, there's only one libertarian in national government (Ron Paul), he advised against the years of exuberant money-printing from Greenspan and Bush (and Clinton before) and against public/private "partnerships" like Fannie and Freddie. Top fans of these things include: everyone else in national government.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think it was on Ezra Klein's blog where he said something like "keep in mind that 100,000 would only be 2,000 people PER STATE." But I believe his numbers were pre-event projections so I generously inflated that.

Either way, take the real number and divide by the total population and prepare to laugh (or cry at the ridiculous coverage.)

Something to keep in mind is that self reliant individuals are not inclined to protest for what they want. By protesting you are asking others for something. Kind of the opposite of self reliance. Also, consider that the tea party protesters share the POV of conservative talk radio listeners. If you are going to portray the TP attendees as disgruntled dead-enders who dont see the wisdom of modern one world society, you also have to include pretty much all of the conservative movement in this grouping. Which means you are disenfrachising 40% of the population. That, you democrats, is a precursor for secession.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: you are disenfrachising 40% of the population. That, you democrats, is a precursor for secession.

disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity ; especially : to deprive of the right to vote dismiss: to reject serious consideration of waaahmbulance: A slang term to descirbe someone who has been whining and bitching so much they need an ambulance
Also:

Quoting DenvilleSteve: consider that the tea party protesters share the POV of conservative talk radio listeners

You're making that up. Also:

Quoting DenvilleSteve: 40% of the population

You're making that up, too. But even if you weren't:

Quoting DenvilleSteve: 40% of the population

Minority. Get over it, lightweight.

Quoting bjkeefe: Someone from your side appears not to have gotten your memo.

Why is it so hard to for those who hate the tea party participants to acknowledge that the term 'teabagging' has predominately been used only by those wishing to discredit the movement? As to 'my side', please link to where I said I supported the tea parties. I actually think they look silly. But then the only protests I've actually seen first hand were usually anti-war loons burning candles and chanting and getting much more of a disproportionate (in their favor) coverage (by the local media) than anything regarding these tax protests. I actually participated in one of these, only insofar as following some folks who were hanging Bush-Hate banners from freeway bridges in Oregon and removing them a few minutes later and disposing of them. When they later saw and confronted me, I explained that I was a public citizen saving the highway dept the work of cleaning up their unlawful act.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Drudge links to a statement by the governor of Texas mentioning secession from the union. Democrats dont want red states to secede from the union, do they?

The

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Something to keep in mind is that self reliant individuals are not inclined to protest for what they want. By protesting you are asking others for something. Kind of the opposite of self reliance.

Also, consider that the tea party protesters share the POV of conservative talk radio listeners. If you are going to portray the TP attendees as disgruntled dead-enders who dont see the wisdom of modern one world society, you also have to include pretty much all of the conservative movement in this grouping. Which means you are disenfrachising 40% of the population. That, you democrats, is a precursor for secession.

Ah, it never fails. Wingnuts spend months hyping their supposed Big Civic Action; when it fails despite the best efforts of corporate lobbying firms, most of talk radio, and the largest cable news channel in the country, they pull out the oldest of old canards: "only liberal hippies go to protests." The lesson from yesterday that you're missing is this, Steve: you are doing a grave injustice to the majority of "40% of the population." It is an insult to equate them with the few spoiled and uninformed brats who did show up, unable

Quoting harkin: Why is it so hard to for those who hate the tea party participants to acknowledge that the term 'teabagging' has predominately been used only by those wishing to discredit the movement?

As to 'my side', please link to where I said I supported the tea parties. I actually think they look silly. But then the only protests I've actually seen first hand were usually anti-war loons burning candles and chanting and getting much more of a disproportionate (in their favor) coverage (by the local media) than anything regarding these tax protests. I actually participated in one of these, only insofar as following some folks who were hanging Bush-Hate banners from freeway bridges in Oregon and removing them a few minutes later and disposing of them. When they later saw and confronted me, I explained that I was a public citizen saving the highway dept the work of cleaning up their unlawful act.

The Texas Governor's unfortunate comment will be flamed incessantly by the nutroots. A good gauge of how honest the reporting is on his statement will be if they also include his words:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely

Quoting Thanks, dad!: gee, it's so interesting to hear from someone who endorses the general philosophy that caused this whole mess. ... YOU WERE WRONG.

You mean like pressuring Banks to give mortgages to people who can not afford them? And claiming that the Government backed corporations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will always buy those mortgages.
The Democrats are not trying to reverse that "Failed Bush Policy".
Barny Frank calls anyone who disagrees with that greedy racist and homophobes who hate poor people.

man, you must be an expert!

Quoting harkin: Why is it so hard to for those who hate the tea party participants to acknowledge that the term 'teabagging' has predominately been used only by those wishing to discredit the movement?

It is not at all hard for me to realize who has been using the term. However, I dispute the term "hate," since the teabaggers are too pathetic to merit that emotion, and I dispute the phrase "wishing to discredit," since the teabaggers are self-discrediting. What you are seeing is documentation of those facts, mockery of people who deserve to be mocked, and an effort to push back against the propaganda of Fox News and hate radio. Nothing more.

Quoting harkin: As to 'my side', please link to where I said I supported the tea parties.

I did not have any idea before yesterday where you stood on this matter. But since you posted such an impassioned statement, I figured you supported them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quoting harkin: I actually think they look silly.

Glad to hear it.

Quoting harkin: But then the only protests I've actually seen first hand were usually anti-war loons burning candles and chanting ...

You are correct (or, at least, I agree with you) to say that left-wing protest(er)s can

Ah, it never fails. Wingnuts spend months hyping their supposed Big Civic Action; when it fails despite the best efforts of corporate lobbying firms, most of talk radio, and the largest cable news channel in the country, they pull out the oldest of old canards: "only liberal hippies go to protests."

How did it fail? It was hugely successful here in my staunchly pro-Obama Southern Californian county. They turned out numbers that we NEVER got in 6 years of anti-war protests. They got vast media coverage. They got immense public cheering (honking of drive-by horns, which was always our antiwar gauge of support), and they organized like crazy for the future. They were well-disciplined (nonviolent) and on message. The only thing in my neighborhood remotely comparable was the pro-immigrant May Day rally of 2006. Our same time/same place pro-peace rally drew 45 people; they got thousands.

Quoting Wonderment: How did it fail? It was hugely successful here in my staunchly pro-Obama Southern Californian county. They turned out numbers that we NEVER got in 6 years of anti-war protests. They got vast media coverage. They got immense public cheering (honking of drive-by horns, which was always our antiwar gauge of support), and they organized like crazy for the future. They were well-disciplined (nonviolent) and on message.

The only thing in my neighborhood remotely comparable was the pro-immigrant May Day rally of 2006. Our same time/same place pro-peace rally drew 45 people; they got thousands.

I'm not sure what you call your "neighborhood," but just Googling anti-war protest los angeles returns, for example, this, this, this, this, and this, among many others. Googling site:latimes.com anti war protest returns a whole lot more. As for media coverage, well, yeah, of course. As I've said elsewhere, there never was much attention paid to anti-war protests by the MSM, even when the crowds were enormous. The right, by contrast, have Fox News and hate radio, eager to promote, help organize, and hype matters. Tell me something I don't know. As for "success," well, okay. You can point to one fairly large gathering. I can point to dozens of laughably pathetic ones elsewhere in the country, if you like.

I'm not sure what you call your "neighborhood,"

Ventura.

As for "success," well, okay. You can point to one fairly large gathering. I can point to dozens of laughably pathetic ones elsewhere in the country, if you like.

I have a hard time believing Ventura was an anomaly. As I said, I would expect a much LOWER turnout for the right here, since it's a solidly Dem. city. We anti-nuke people had the Chair of the County Supervisors, the President of the Board of Education and other dignitaries. But they had the masses. They probably drew on the more right-wing areas of the County (Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, etc.), but even so it was a very impressive turnout, especially the young people. What does it all mean? Obama won California by a huge margin, and his popularity has only increased since the election, so the opposition has a long long way to go to subvert his agenda. The Republicans lost miserably and seemed in utter disarray. But these demonstrations demonstrated to me that they are regrouping with lots of new energy and on issues that blindsided me. They are not ranting about ba-ba-bombing Iran, persecuting gays or deporting workers. It's all about the budget

Quoting Wonderment: Ventura.

I have a hard time believing Ventura was an anomaly. As I said, I would expect a much LOWER turnout for the right here, since it's a solidly Dem. city. We anti-nuke people had the Chair of the County Supervisors, the President of the Board of Education and other dignitaries. But they had the masses.

They probably drew on the more right-wing areas of the County (Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, etc.), but even so it was a very impressive turnout, especially the young people.

Yeah, that seems about right to me. If it was about the only game around, or at least the most heavily promoted, it would not surprise me that southern Californians would be willing to drive an hour or two to get there. And remember that even for the local population, "solidly Dem" means what, a 60/40 split? I don't say this gathering was an anomaly. I would be surprised, in fact, given the amount of promotion by the right-wing media, that you couldn't get a few thousand people out on a nice day. Still, a few thousand in a region whose population measures in the tens of millions ...

What does it all mean? Obama won California by a huge margin, and his popularity

Slight tangent but interesting: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ty_message.php

Quoting bjkeefe: Still, a few thousand in a region whose population measures in the tens of millions ...

And as for the nation overall, let's turn to the best source for coverage of teabaggers: TBogg. ;^)

If you say so, although I'm not sure why you should have been "blindsided" by right-wingers being willing to complain about taxes, or able to parrot sudden new-found concerns about the national debt, when these have pretty much been the only talking points from the GOP and right-wing media since Obama first proposed his stimulus package.

I will explain: I spent a lot of my time from 9/12/01 to 1/20/09 protesting Bush foreign policy. Every time I was in the streets I was confronted by pro-war right-wingers who ranted about Islamofascism, cutting and running, the glories of defeating Saddam Hussein, the need for torture, and the installation of pseudo-democracies by force. The Dems. who opposed the war and torture were viewed as traitors at worst or sissy idealists at best. Obama, anti Iraq war from the git-go, personified everything wrong with the liberal internationalist left. But now he's president and the right is apparently delighted with his foreign policy, but appalled by his economic policy, even though much of it is carryover from Bush and even though Geitner is barely distinguishable from Paulson. Closing Gitmo, denouncing torture and sticking to the withdrawal plan from Iraq has not stirred

Quoting Wonderment: I will explain: I spent a lot of my time from 9/12/01 to 1/20/09 protesting Bush foreign policy. Every time I was in the streets I was confronted by pro-war right-wingers who ranted about Islamofascism, cutting and running, the glories of defeating Saddam Hussein, the need for torture, and the installation of pseudo-democracies by force. The Dems. who opposed the war and torture were viewed as traitors at worst or sissy idealists at best. Obama, anti Iraq war from the git-go, personified everything wrong with the liberal internationalist left.

But now he's president and the right is apparently delighted with his foreign policy, but appalled by his economic policy, even though much of it is carryover from Bush and even though Geitner is barely distinguishable from Paulson. Closing Gitmo, denouncing torture and sticking to the withdrawal plan from Iraq has not stirred the righties, but taxes have (even though most of them are paying less taxes now than then).

Okay, I can see why you said "blindsided," although I stand by my expression of surprise that you were unaware of what the dominant messages coming from the right-wing noise machine have been over the past four months. I'd add

Fox News ratings went up with coverage of the protests as well. So if some people weren't there in body they were there in spirit.

Three cheers for your honesty about what you saw Wonderment. Good stuff.

Quoting Lyle: Fox News ratings went up with coverage of the protests as well. So if some people weren't there in body they were there in spirit.

Like the man said ... Y'all wanna hang on your couches covered in Cheetos dust, I could not be happier. [Added] Well, actually I could, but that would involve you all thinking for yourselves instead of uncritically absorbing the way Fox News wants you to see the world, so I'll stick with what's realistic.

I don't really watch Fox News, but their ratings went up with coverage of the protests, which evidences some kind of success for the "Tea Parties".

Quoting Lyle: I don't really watch Fox News, but their ratings went up with coverage of the protests, which evidences some kind of success for the "Tea Parties".

If that's how you all measure success, again, I'm happy. Did you do lots of Twittering, with special hash tags, too?

I'm not a fan of Twitter actually. That's not my preferred method of communicating or being communciated to. If I had to use my cell phone more, maybe I'd get in to it, but for now it's blogs, online newspapers and magazines for me.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... and I dispute the phrase "wishing to discredit," since the teabaggers are self-discrediting.

More on this from curv3ball at the PMI:

A Day Late, and a Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

When Bush entered office, there was a large budget surplus and Alan Greenspan was fretting that we were going to pay down the debt too quickly. Heady days those were .

Bush proceeded to explode the annual deficits, and balloon the very same national debt that was previously at risk of disappearing at too fast a rate, by passing a series of multi-trillion dollar tax cuts that accrued to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans while fighting two enormously expensive wars - one of which was entirely optional and based on nothing much in particular.

Hand waves, lies, scare tactics and 9/11.

With the country properly in the shit-hole Bush dug for it, the Teabaggists are naturally incensed at Barack Obama’s fiscal policies: his middle class tax cuts, willingness to let Bush’s cuts for the fat cats expire and his spending bills enacted as a means of resuscitating Bush’s cratered economy.

It all makes perfect sense. More. Ons.

Finally, it always, always, always comes down to the economy. If times are tough, that is going to be what most average people have on their minds, almost to the exclusion of all else, especially if whatever else they hear about other issues contains no particular threat or drama.

True, but that is part of what disturbs me about the right wing success yesterday. The economy is even more important for poor people on the left than for the middle class right. If average people have bread and butter issues foremost on their minds, where are the rallies to make sure that the STIM bill $$$$ gets allocated to programs we support? Where are the rallies for universal healthcare? As I said, our counter-demonstration was about economic issues -- how to spend 160 million dollars in our county for children's healthcare, the environment, the homeless, etc. But only about 40 people showed up.

I may have missed it here, but has anyone discussed the points raised on presidential lying? Do all politicians lie? Is lying just something we take for granted in American politics? Are lies redeemed or condemned only by subsequent events, or are they intrinsically deplorable? Henry seems to take the former position, while Matt argues for the latter. Today I noticed a somewhat subtly embedded fudging of the truth in an Obama remark. He was taking about torture and the Republican (proud) confessions of such:

"The interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported,...The previous administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program -- and some of the practices -- associated with these [torture] memos."

"The United States is a nation of laws," Obama's statement said. "My administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakable commitment to our ideals."

He also added a bunch about "looking forward" and not asking for retribution. But doesn't "acting in accordance with laws," require prosecution of their crimes (torture)? Isn't it absurd and disingenuous to ask prosecutors to "look forward"? Prosecutors ALWAYS look back; crimes are never committed in the future.

Quoting Wonderment: He also added a bunch about "looking forward" and not asking for retribution. But doesn't "acting in accordance with laws," require prosecution of their crimes (torture)? Isn't it absurd and disingenuous to ask prosecutors to "look forward"? Prosecutors ALWAYS look back; crimes are never committed in the future.

Require is the operative word. I'd love to hear good reasons for not prosecuting that isn't simply an excuse for moving on, to save face or avoid political waves.

Quoting Wonderment: He also added a bunch about "looking forward" and not asking for retribution. But doesn't "acting in accordance with laws," require prosecution of their crimes (torture)? Isn't it absurd and disingenuous to ask prosecutors to "look forward"? Prosecutors ALWAYS look back; crimes are never committed in the future.

Good points all around in your post. Jane Hamsher and Ann Althouse discussed your latter point here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/141...4:17&out=36:20 I'm in agreement with Althouse. Prosecutors have the discretion to prosecute or not prosecute. Some things are really policy arguments and should be determined by the election process. It would also be hard to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on whether or not they "tortured" and therefore broke a law. Often when prosecutors doubt they can convict, they don't prosecute.

Quoting Lyle:
It would also be hard to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on whether or not they "tortured" and therefore broke a law. Often when prosecutors doubt they can convict, they don't prosecute.

The point seems to be that there was or is no question as to "reasonable doubt." The point is that the law was broken.

Quoting Wonderment: True, but that is part of what disturbs me about the right wing success yesterday. The economy is even more important for poor people on the left than for the middle class right.

If average people have bread and butter issues foremost on their minds, where are the rallies to make sure that the STIM bill $$$$ gets allocated to programs we support? Where are the rallies for universal healthcare?

As I said, our counter-demonstration was about economic issues -- how to spend 160 million dollars in our county for children's healthcare, the environment, the homeless, etc. But only about 40 people showed up.

I'm no expert in this stuff by any means, but I can observe some differences which I guess might help explain. First, the teabaggers were motivated by a sense that it was personal to them, where your rally tried to motivate based largely on concerns for others. Plus, you had sort of a nebulous goal -- shift some money from one area of the budget to another, basically. Intellectually appealing, to be sure, but not very visceral. Second, what you're pushing is essentially a request that has been outstanding for what seems like forever -- stop overspending on military matters

Quoting graz: The point seems to be that there was or is no question as to "reasonable doubt." The point is that the law was broken.

That hasn't been unambiguously clear, because we haven't known about a lot of what was declared to be legal in secret. I saw something somewhere a short while ago that said it is at least arguable that trying to prosecute those who did the actual torturing would be hard if it could be shown that they were acting in accordance with the law (and the meaning of "torture") as the Bush Administration (re)defined it. It'll be interesting to see what happens next, now that (some of?) the torture memos have been released. Emotionally, I agree with you, of course.

Oh, I think there is. A lot of people disagree, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Quoting Lyle: Oh, I think there is. A lot of people disagree, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Yeah, I may not be clear cut.

Quoting Wonderment: I may have missed it here, but has anyone discussed the points raised on presidential lying?

Not until you started it. And a good topic to discuss.

Do all politicians lie?

Yes. At least, all successful ones do, to one degree or another.

Is lying just something we take for granted in American politics?

Some do. Most people who get involved, I think, are a little short of this. I'd say instead that they recognize the realities of the way things work.

Are lies redeemed or condemned only by subsequent events, or are they intrinsically deplorable? Henry seems to take the former position, while Matt argues for the latter.

I think they can be okay, even necessary, in the sense of accomplishing a greater good, or in the interests of preventing a bigger problem. It is a sad fact of life that enemies, whether foreign or domestic (political opponents) can often find a way to use your telling of the truth against you. Obviously, there's always the risk of overdoing it, of falling in love with "the ends justify the means," of overweighting the importance of what you're trying to accomplish or prevent, and so on. Ultimately, it is a wide spectrum, and I don't think I can

That hasn't been unambiguously clear, because we haven't known about a lot of what was declared to be legal in secret. I saw something somewhere a short while ago that said it is at least arguable that trying to prosecute those who did the actual torturing would be hard if it could be shown that they were acting in accordance with the law (and the meaning of "torture") as the Bush Administration (re)defined it.

Right, but that doesn't address the question of prosecuting the principals: the lawyers and "deciders." Cheney has confessed to torture publicly. The proof against Bush, Rumsfeld and others is just as compelling as the confession. Obama seems to be arguing that although waterboarding is and always has been a crime, Cheney is immune from prosecution. Why? If Cheney murdered his wife, took a bribe or embezzled money from the Office of the Vice President, he'd be prosecuted. Why not for torture? It seems especially important to close the loop of hiring lawyers who will "legalize" anything, acting on the advice of such lawyers, then claiming immunity from both sides when the lawyer says, "I gave an honest legal opinion" and

I'm just a few minutes in and flabbergasted that neither Farrell (who has read several of Leeson's papers) and Welch (who is ideologically sympathetic to Leeson's arguments) mentioned Better Off Stateless regarding Somalia.

The real problem is that along with the principals, there are accessories that are Democrats. Certain Democrats in Congress supported what the CIA was doing (ultimately under orders from Bush). What some people tend to forget is the clandestine part of the CIA exists to committ crimes. Their job is to go to other countries and break that countries law to obtain information or carry out whatever mission (assassination, support rebels, etc.). The CIA now works for Obama and it doesn't make sense for him to prosecute them for what they're supposed to do, which is to committ crimes. Not to mention lose their support or hamstring their ability to work for Obama.

It's certainly worth distinguishing among categories of lies: 1) Rhetorical lie ("I will never raise taxes"); 2) Deception ("We have never tortured a prisoner"); 3) Irrelevant non-political lie ("I did not have sex with that woman..."); 4) Lie under oath (Scooter Libby); Quasi-lies: cover-up, obfuscation, semantic trickery ("depends what is is"), secret-making ("That's classified!"), etc. The seriousness of the subject matter is important (what's at stake), as are the consequences, the intentions and the justifications.

Quoting Wonderment: Right, but that doesn't address the question of prosecuting the principals: the lawyers and "deciders." Cheney has confessed to torture publicly. The proof against Bush, Rumsfeld and others is just as compelling as the confession.

Obama seems to be arguing that although waterboarding is and always has been a crime, Cheney is immune from prosecution. Why? If Cheney murdered his wife, took a bribe or embezzled money from the Office of the Vice President, he'd be prosecuted. Why not for torture?

It seems especially important to close the loop of hiring lawyers who will "legalize" anything, acting on the advice of such lawyers, then claiming immunity from both sides when the lawyer says, "I gave an honest legal opinion" and the criminal says, "I acted in good faith on advice from my attorney."

It would also likely suck the energy out of every other issue on the table. General media attention would focus like a laser on the fight it creates. Right-wing media thuggery would spin out of control. Every priority the Administration has would be subject to the black hole that this would almost inevitably create. They'd spend most of their energy on P.R. management and

#3 is also an example of #4, which is why it wasn't irrelevant. the cumming on a dress was irrelevant, the lie about it wasn't.

Quoting AemJeff: It would also likely suck the energy out of every other issue on the table. General media attention would focus like a laser on the fight it creates. Right-wing media thuggery would spin out of control. Every priority the Administration has would be subject to the black hole that this would almost inevitably create. They'd spend most of their energy on P.R. management and damage control. I doubt very seriously that these guys want to go down that road. And I'm pretty sure they'd be right about that choice, from a strategic POV.

Indeed. But maybe Obama is employing three dimensional chess again. Hoping that foreign court (as in Spain) efforts will force the issue while deflecting the responsibility for prosecution. Of course, I'm clueless. http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheda...5961239896403/

Quoting Wonderment: It's certainly worth distinguishing among categories of lies: 1) Rhetorical lie ("I will never raise taxes"); 2) Deception ("We have never tortured a prisoner"); 3) Irrelevant non-political lie ("I did not have sex with that woman..."); 4) Lie under oath (Scooter Libby); Quasi-lies: cover-up, obfuscation, semantic trickery ("depends what is is"), secret-making ("That's classified!"), etc.

The seriousness of the subject matter is important (what's at stake), as are the consequences, the intentions and the justifications.

This is surprisingly non-idealistic, coming from you. ;^)

Quoting T.G.G.P: I'm just a few minutes in and flabbergasted that neither Farrell (who has read several of Leeson's papers) and Welch (who is ideologically sympathetic to Leeson's arguments) mentioned Better Off Stateless regarding Somalia.

Oh man thank you, every time I listened to this I wanted to link an article but by the end of the diavlog I had forgotten. For those interested in the Austrian take on Somalia, here's the Mises Institute's:
http://mises.org/story/2066
In case you can't finish the article because you're laughing too hard to breath, the user generated tags offer a pretty accurate summary.

Quoting Lyle: What some people tend to forget is the clandestine part of the CIA exists to committ crimes. Their job is to go to other countries and break that countries law to obtain information or carry out whatever mission (assassination, support rebels, etc.). The CIA now works for Obama and it doesn't make sense for him to prosecute them for what they're supposed to do, which is to committ crimes. Not to mention lose their support or hamstring their ability to work for Obama.

It'd make sense as a first step towards shutting down that failed, counter-productive and

Quoting Wonderment: Right, but that doesn't address the question of prosecuting the principals: the lawyers and "deciders." Cheney has confessed to torture publicly. The proof against Bush, Rumsfeld and others is just as compelling as the confession.

Obama seems to be arguing that although waterboarding is and always has been a crime, Cheney is immune from prosecution. Why? If Cheney murdered his wife, took a bribe or embezzled money from the Office of the Vice President, he'd be prosecuted. Why not for torture?

It seems especially important to close the loop of hiring lawyers who will "legalize" anything, acting on the advice of such lawyers, then claiming immunity from both sides when the lawyer says, "I gave an honest legal opinion" and the criminal says, "I acted in good faith on advice from my attorney."

I have not studied what Obama has said on this, so I don't really want to take a position on that. I will say that what Jeff said is pretty much the way I feel now; i.e., to the extent that I understand the legal aspects, it is not a slam dunk, and the realities of the situation are that this is a political fight the GOP would looooove to have, that

I agree with Jeff and Brendan on this one. As someone who would LOVE to see justice done, and thinks accountability and respect for law are more than just slogans, it pains me to admit it but...given the current situations/crises I don't think it would be wise for Obama to push this sort of thing. If Waxman/Leahy continue to push, I'm fine with that. But frankly, Obama needs to keep the support of the people (tea-bimbos aside) and I do believe that aggressive prosecution of Bush officials would very possibly turn the country into the kinda shitsorm that would prevent him from tackle the tremendous obstacles this country faces. Incidentally did anyone see this: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...two_states.php Dare we dream?!!

It would also likely suck the energy out of every other issue on the table. General media attention would focus like a laser on the fight it creates. Right-wing media thuggery would spin out of control. Every priority the Administration has would be subject to the black hole that this would almost inevitably create. They'd spend most of their energy on P.R. management and damage control. I doubt very seriously that these guys want to go down that road. And I'm pretty sure they'd be right about that choice, from a strategic POV.

Maybe. On the other hand, it could be a big plus for the country, demonstrating to the rest of the world that we are serious about change, accountability, democracy, equality before the law, due process, and an end to US exceptionalism.

But maybe Obama is employing three dimensional chess again.

I'm disinclined to give Obama too much credit as a wizard. The left is too much in Obama-can-do-no-wrong mode. Anything he says or does is -- by definition -- brilliant, prudent, virtuous and wise.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm disinclined to give Obama too much credit as a wizard. The left is too much in Obama-can-do-no-wrong mode. Anything he says or does is -- by definition -- brilliant, prudent, virtuous and wise.

Despite the laughter I'm sure this will provoke, I insist that I am not of the opinion that Obama can do no wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a brilliant politician, among his other skills, and I believe he has demonstrated quite a few times already that he was several moves ahead of most everybody else. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss graz's speculation.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Incidentally did anyone see this:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...two_states.php

Dare we dream?!!

Huh. I feel like I can't let myself dream about this anymore, but ... if anyone can do it, Obama can!!! (special for Wonderment ;^) ) Seriously, though, this seems a little strange when everybody who is anybody in the political game cautions against raising expectations. Especially on this of all issues. I wonder if Rahm was off the reservation? Misquoted? Please let me know if you see any follow-up. Thanks.

Quoting harkin: The Texas Governor's unfortunate comment will be flamed incessantly by the nutroots.

One more thing that occurs to me on this. Try to set aside whatever political leanings you have. Now imagine that a Democratic governor had gone up on a stage in front of the cameras at a political rally and bandied about talk of secession during Bush's first term. Forget about the wingnutosphere and answer these two questions. 1. How long would it be the most important topic of discussion in the MSM? 2. How long would it be the only topic of discussion on Fox? Now think about how much time was spent obsessing over Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" snippet and answer those two questions again.

It would be obtuse to not have spies.

Quoting bjkeefe:

Quoting graz: The point seems to be that there was or is no question as to "reasonable doubt." The point is that the law was broken.

That hasn't been unambiguously clear, because we haven't known about a lot of what was declared to be legal in secret. I saw something somewhere a short while ago that said it is at least arguable that trying to prosecute those who did the actual torturing would be hard if it could be shown that they were acting in accordance with the law (and the meaning of "torture") as the Bush Administration (re)defined it.

Thoughts along this line, and some others, from B'heads Robert Farley and Spencer Ackerman.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: gee, it's so interesting to hear from someone who endorses the general philosophy that caused this whole mess. please tell me more about how you're going to get me my job back. i notice matt is also completely backpedaling from his position months ago when he was boldly challenging everyone to point out which dereg action contributed to this....all i will say is - thank you simon johnson finally, why why why do libertarians get any say in anything anymore? YOU WERE WRONG.

Obviously you didn't have a subscription to Reason during the 2000-2008 era, or you would never have said something so amazingly stupid and misinformed. Bush was the most ANTI-libertarian president since LBJ.

Matt's statements about the draft, etc. made me wonder where else the libertarians were ahead on the big questions, and of course there's the whole legalization of pot which is slowly being realized (whether or not Obama keeps breaking his campaign promises to shackle the DEA) but how about the gay movement? Oddly, according to wikipedia, even the Libertarian party itself adopted a strong pro-gay stance back in 1972, which is way before Will and Grace or even the Laff-A-Lympics made it acceptable for the Democrats to consider. So as soon as you guys catch up on the Keynes and the guns stuff, we'll be all square.

I think it's interesting that the lunatic Glenn Beck got terrible ratings when he was in the 5:00 PM slot at CNN (HLN), but his ratings are through the roof at the wackjob network, Fox News. Same show, same time slot, same nutjob behind the camera -- but completely different ratings. I hope the other networks take the lesson: Lunatics, wackjobs, and wingnut extremists watch Fox News -- and there is little point in the other networks catering to the audience of far right crazies.

Quoting bjkeefe: If that's how you all measure success, again, I'm happy.

Did you do lots of Twittering, with special hash tags, too?

ROFL. I was watching the news yesterday and the newsbots were gushing about how "the tea parties were organized on Twitter." As if. I've hardly ever heard anything so preposterous. Do these people know anything about Twitter?

LOL - the far right tea parties were "a success" because they got good ratings on the far right news channel. Embrace the bubble, Lyle.

tara, as i've said before, you are easliy the dumbest person i've ever encountered on this board....either that or one helluva troll. the only comment that's stupid was yours. ya know why? because instead if assessing the facts and then forming an opinion, in typical fashion, you spewed some more con garbage onto the web. and strangely, i actually did read reason for a number of years during that time. if you actually had the ability to be honest with yourself (which you don't, and most likely won't respond to this because you never do) you'd realize that dereg. (the libertarian wet dream) went CRAZY during the bush years. you have a total inability to think independently and it's been like this for years. please, please go away. are you trying to make us dumber? why would anyone think that life actually, against all odds, happens to perfectly align with con values?

I feel like this may be some strange libertarian-speak for something, but I wanted to see if others knew what Matt means here.

Quoting mmacklem: I feel like this may be some strange libertarian-speak for something, but I wanted to see if others knew what Matt means here.

Somalia is libertarian paradise, of course.

that's him hedging - "i want to be a libertarian but i just recently realized that i have to pay attention to reality instead." in his head he's thinking "markets, markets, markets....uh,.....mmmmmmarkets, markets..."

I liked that it was finally acknowledged that taxes are going up on everybody, not just "the wealthy" state income taxes, sales tax (one of the more regressive taxes as it hits the poor harder), "fees" = tax like here in California where the vehicle registration fee is dramatically increased (again, a regressive tax as it hits the poor far harder than the rich). Which is fine, be nice if more people were honest about it though, honest that they want taxes higher on everyone.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: tara, as i've said before, you are easliy the dumbest person i've ever encountered on this board....either that or one helluva troll. the only comment that's stupid was yours. ya know why? because instead if assessing the facts and then forming an opinion, in typical fashion, you spewed some more con garbage onto the web. and strangely, i actually did read reason for a number of years during that time. if you actually had the ability to be honest with yourself (which you don't, and most likely won't respond to this because you never do) you'd realize that dereg. (the libertarian wet dream) went CRAZY during the bush years. you have a total inability to think independently and it's been like this for years. please, please go away. are you trying to make us dumber? why would anyone think that life actually, against all odds, happens to perfectly align with con values?

I think your criticisms are unfair on at least three counts. First, it is a mistake to equate a libertarian outlook with whatever stereotype you have in mind of conservatives. Second, while you're right that Bush was happy to deregulate in some areas, there are other ways

Quoting JonIrenicus: I liked that it was finally acknowledged that taxes are going up on everybody, not just "the wealthy"

state income taxes, sales tax (one of the more regressive taxes as it hits the poor harder), "fees" = tax like here in California where the vehicle registration fee is dramatically increased (again, a regressive tax as it hits the poor far harder than the rich).

Which is fine, be nice if more people were honest about it though, honest that they want taxes higher on everyone.

Points taken, although in return, you ought to be more clear that it is not the same agency or branch of government that is raising all these taxes. When you post something like this, it sounds like an attempt to rebut Obama's claim that he has cut taxes for 95% of the population, and is far more misleading than is his omission of the word income before taxes.

sorry, there's no two ways to look at this list:
• insistence on free movement of capital across borders; • the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking; • a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps; • major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks; • a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement; • an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness; • and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation. i challenge you to name a (genuine, non-troll-like) person who's been consistently dumber or more robotic over the last three year period KS and harkin, etc. don't count because they post just to get you going...ok, now that i think hard i guess bobby g. might qualify.

The "far right news" out performs both CNN and MSNBC. Lots of people watch it apparently.

Quoting Lyle: The "far right news" out performs both CNN and MSNBC. Lots of people watch it apparently.

Okay, then. In that case, you all can stop whining about the "liberal media," right?

Quoting Thanks, dad!: sorry, there's no two ways to look at this list:
• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

• the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

• a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

• major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

• an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness;

• and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation.

All good points, and compliments are in order for your specificity. (Wishes are, too, that this had been your initial response to Tara.) However, if you take one step back, my earlier point still applies; i.e., I don't dispute that the Bushies were fans of deregulation in some areas. To all of the above, which we could just summarize by saying "the Bush Administration favored fewer controls in the financial services industry," we could add other areas, like the environment, worker safety, and consumer protection. But still, this does not negate the legitimate assessment that Bush's hands were not off, so to speak, all across the

don't give me too much credit 'cuz i just copied that from simon johnson but that's why i get bent outta shape: a major expose hits the web and tara and matt welch just keep their blinders on while continuing to read townhall and reason.
and, aw, come on! i don't think anyone's even reading this thread now...it's safe to, at least, post a couple of initials so I can get a tip on who's dumber

Reason did have a lot of articles critical of Bush, mostly in the last year he was in office, but some started trickling in a bit earlier. but if you ever ventured into the comment section, it was exactly as Thanksdad implies - full of right-wing cranks with the most obviously base motives (i.e. the standard libertarian - I'm rich and I'm greedy and heartless too!) for their opinions.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: don't give me too much credit 'cuz i just copied that from simon johnson but that's why i get bent outta shape: a major expose hits the web and tara and matt welch just keep their blinders on while continuing to read townhall and reason.
and, aw, come on! i don't think anyone's even reading this thread now...it's safe to, at least, post a couple of initials so I can get a tip on who's dumber

Well ... since you insist ... Let's start with anyone who copies other people's words without supplying a link or other attribution. ;^)

It is difficult to determine just what you are saying as you provide no specifics but I will do the best I can given your generalities.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: sorry, there's no two ways to look at this list:
• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

Can't really comment on this no specific compliant.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: • the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

If you are referring to the the changes made to the Glass-Steagall act that was done under President Clinton "Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act."

Quoting Thanks, dad!: • a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

I am guessing that this refers to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act While I realize that President Bush was the President elect at the time this too "was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000"

Quoting Thanks, dad!: • major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

I can not decipher these to specific legislation or regulation and I am

Quoting piscivorous: [...]

Wow, pisc! Look at you wonk out! That was impressive. Now, knock it off, will ya? You're making the rest of us look like dumb commenters. ;^)

wha!?!

i'm not sure what you mean but that was just a list of libertarian wet dreams which caused the recession. no amount of nuance can deny that high finance types like paulson, etc. were pushing for this to happen and made it so by urging their friends in congress to make the appropriate changes so they could make more money from nothing...at our expense.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think "tea bagging" is slang for a gay men's sex act. Is that correct?

More he'p for the non-hep: Paul Campos at LGM (via). Seriously, when was the last time the guys at Power Line showed any evidence that they've been outside of the bubble since, like, 1974? And I will tell you this, from reading the whole post that Paul caught: if Scott Johnson were any more uptight, you wouldn't be able to pull a needle out of his ass with a tractor.

Quoting Tara Davis: Obviously you didn't have a subscription to Reason during the 2000-2008 era ...

Nor did I, but to the extent that I can tell from my visits to their site, especially since they lost David Weigel, I'd say John Cole's post on this topic hits the nail on the head.

Quote:
But maybe Obama is employing three dimensional chess again.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm disinclined to give Obama too much credit as a wizard. The left is too much in Obama-can-do-no-wrong mode. Anything he says or does is -- by definition -- brilliant, prudent, virtuous and wise.

I know that implication of the "left" is not specific, but it seems to contradict a fair amount criticism of Obama from that flank:
At least a certain brand of left. Openly left. More of the same. *I am not suggesting that you are such a member. Further, your posts indicate a level of community organizing and petitioning that exceeds most here. Therefore I thank you. But would appreciate some context if you like. http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/

Graz, You are going to make my head spin with all those blog references. I don't follow any blogs, although I do know that the Naomi Klein article has people talking. I received some emails on that and read the original piece in the Nation. My sense of how Obama's doing and how he's generally perceived on the left comes from what I see here on Bheads and what I hear in the street. I think Obama is kind of a glass half full/half empty phenomenon. Some people think his achievements are amazing because their expectations were originally lower than those who think his achievements are not so impressive. Most progressives I run into are loathe to criticize him because of his immense mainstream popularity, because there is no third party opposition/alternative to the Democrats, and because he's smart, hip and charming. I have met NO ONE who has shifted her view on Obama. Those who were skeptical to begin with remain so; those who were enthusiastic still are. For example, I was at a reading at a church this week of "Poems from Guantαnamo" (written by prisoners and torture victims) and a talk by a lawyer from the

I think what he means is "You're committed to the idea of a government when you're involved in government".

Quoting Wonderment: Graz, You are going to make my head spin with all those blog references.

I agree that too much blog surfing can make one dizzy. I also appreciate your firsthand perspective. This last point may seem obvious but is often overlooked. A Washington insider, who doesn't venture far may have a skewed take. A cheetos eating basement dweller may rely on ideology over actuality. And your point about people not changing their views (minds) is well taken. People often see and hear what they choose to. I know I often do.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: sorry, there's no two ways to look at this list:
• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

• the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

• a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

• major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

• an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness;

• and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation..

Bush does 7 things and that makes him a libertarian. Does this work both ways 1) Increased medicare spending
2) Increased spending on alternative enregy research for automobiles
3) No Child Left behind-A bill written by Ted Kennedy
4) Tore away civil liberties for national security
5) engaged in nation building ala Bill Clinton
6) Encouraged no compeition contracts
7) gave more power to federal regulators and increased the number of federal regulators on the books
8) Bailed out failing banks
9) Bailed out failing automobile industry These are 7 things spread out in many different parts of his administration. I could tally all that up and call him anti-libertarian if

if you actually read reason you're a total moron. secondly, i was showing that those things took place during the last decade or so by citing johnson's list...this took place largely on bush's watch.