Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Winterriangles,
They may have been very nice at a meeting, but look what they are doing in power controlling just one branch of government. They are holding the country hostage to their ideology, willing to ruin the economy if they don't get their way and create hyper inflation.

Yoda,
The Tea Party is willing to risk default and trigger an economic crisis if they don't get their way on everything. That makes them Al Qaeda like in their fanaticism. No, they are not violent, but they are unreasonable and have no business being at the seat in a democracy with that kind of thinking. As for the rapist and the girl in the mini skirt, you were the one blaming Democrats for the actions of the TPers. They are not. They are responsible for them being there to some degree in Congress, not for their insane behavior, just as the girl in the revealing dress may have something to do with catching the attention of a creep, but not responsible for his subsequent actions.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I don't need you to explain the thought process that caused you to liken Tea Partiers to terrorists, Will. The problem with what you said is not that it lacks intellectual coherence; it doesn't lack coherence to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, either. What it lacks is a modicum of perspective.

And just how consistently do you gauge fanaticism, while we're at it? What would you say to a group that advocates a policy that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, has little basis in theory or in practice, paints any opposition to it as harming simple Americans, and which, when it fails spectacularly to do even a fraction of what they said it would, has the gall to say it's only because they didn't do more? Would you call it fanaticism to respond to outrageous failures by doubling down in the face of contrary evidence? Because that perfectly describes the Democratic party's position on government stimulus.

I didn't say they were terrorists, but like Al Qaeda they are fanatics willing to cause economic rather than physical harm to serve their rigid ideology. It wasn't clear they were fanatics to this extreme until they got into power and were willing to bring the country to the brink of disaster. If we avoid it, it will be because a compromise will get the vote of enough Republicans in the Senate to pass there and some Republicans in the House, probably none from the Tea Party wing in the House. So it will be no thanks to them if we get an agreement. Their unwillingness to not even discuss any kind of taxes makes them fanatics. They want to slash entitlements for working people and not even discuss taxes. Their insistence on a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote of both houses or we would automatically default in six months was completely irresponsible. They only control one branch of government and they want everything their way. It is a bad movement.

Even if you are correct in your assessment of the stimulus, at most it was an expensive failure. And even many conservative economists advocated for a government stimulus package. It wasn't entirely the idea of liberals. It is hardly comparable to holding the country hostage to an economic crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences by refusing to budge an inch in negotiations. To argue that Democratic criticism of the stimulus is unfair, saying it harms working Americans, that is being political on you part, what you accuse me of, because you are blind to the harsh rhetoric that comes from the other side, and is actually much worse. There are no major progressive political commentators that are as attack dog and mean spirited as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck.

I'll repeat myself, with added emphasis:

"I don't need you to explain the thought process that caused you to liken Tea Partiers to terrorists, Will. The problem with what you said is not that it lacks intellectual coherence; it doesn't lack coherence to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, either. What it lacks is a modicum of perspective."

This is a bad joke. I really shouldn't have to explain why you don't compare political opponents to terrorists. Not wanting new taxes doesn't make you LIKE a terrorist in any way that matters. This type of rhetoric is absurd.

This in no way, shape, or form, demonstrates fanaticism. It is completely arbitrary. There is nothing which indicates that a reasonable person should necessarily be willing to include raising taxes in this situation. In fact, you can make an excellent case that it's a terrible idea using only Democratic rhetoric over the last few years. One could just as easily (and with more empirical evidence to support the statement, by the way) say that it's fanatical to insist that we should.

I am, and I don't think saying "at most it was an expensive failure" is any kind of defense. In fact, it's pretty damning.

To be sure, some conservatives suffer under the same delusions about government. But they are few, and they're not the ones who insist that it only failed because they didn't do MORE. It's this doubling-down in the face of this severe failure that is fanatical.

This "holding the country hostage" stuff doesn't fly. Which side of the issue is "holding the country hostage" is completely a product of which one you think is closer to the correct position. There is nothing to stop a Tea Partier from saying that the Democrats are holding the country hostage by insisting on tax increases.

Saying what you're saying here is just a rhetoric-amplified version of saying you don't agree with them again. It is not some new argument.

Pretty amusing that you're calling out mean-spirited attack dogs in the same post you compare Tea Partiers to Al Qaeda...again. Do you have any sense of irony?

Re: the quote above. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I fail to see how this matters at all. At no point did I suggest that Democrats are the only ones who ever vilify anyone. What I did suggest is that Democrats have been fanatical in their belief in government stimulus, not only because they called for it (and wanted to make it as large as possible), but because they demagogue people who are against it, and their response to a stern rebuke from reality is to come back for more and insist they didn't do enough. That's a fanatical response to a failed policy, and I doubt you'd have any trouble seeing as much if they were Republicans.

I hope the next pesident is Unregistered.

Sorry...couldn't resist.

That sky rockets the count to a total number of.... one.

Thanks for the confidence, though!

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

You say they demagogue people who were against the stimulus. Exact quotes, please? I am not saying some did, but oh, the other side doesn't do that? Sean Hannity insisted when the bank crisis first hit the economy was fine, but a few days after Obama was elected, and this is no exaggeration, called it the Obama Depression. You can use that language with some justification now if you are so inclined because he has been in power a few years, but that was demagoguing far worse than anything specific you have been claiming about Democrats.

Nah. If you look at the numbers in perspective, the stimulus was only a very small percentage of GDP. If we look at this in terms of flows, that's like expecting a single water-gun shot to trigger a tidal wave. That being said, the economy is not exactly a linear system, so strategically placed flows could have possibly coalesced into larger effects, but they ultimately did not. So much for our first experimental trial. Onto a second, no? Or is "one data point" always enough to discount the entire theory? And even still, the size scales involved here are already quite large, so there's no reason to think that a true solution would not be proportionally large.

This size scale fetishism is precisely what's motivating the refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

Liberals like to think of the economy in such mechanical terms. They are, first and foremost, social engineers. Now, perhaps this is the main source of their biggest illusions, but I maintain that is fanatical to assume to the contrary that absolutely no discernible mechanics exist at all in the economy. Such an attitude towards a material structure is known as mysticism. Conservatives such as yourself have all the tendencies of fanatical religions believing in an infinitely mysterious, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful "invisible hand" that should not be challenged. Any liberal attempts to use reason to discover patterns in the system -- no matter how logically derived or experimentally successful -- are immediately rejected as heretical blasphemes against the infallible "invisible hand". This is fanaticism at its purest.

Liberals are pragmatists. They have no such faith in any single power. Their policies are ugly, piecewise patchworks of various, seemingly unrelated ideas. They have no theoretical purity. They only want to help the people to the best of their ability, which is often limited. And if they make claims to understand the economy, know that they really don't; no one does. This is, again, the source of their greatest failures. Yet what sets them apart from Conservatives is their adamant refusal -- for whatever reason -- to allow suffering to be prolonged. They are always searching for an immediate solution to better the human situation. They are always concerned for the immediate welfare of the people whom they are somehow representations. Remember that they are not merely agents in a political arena. They are supposed to, always, be the people. This concern, this care, at base is not an ideology; this is the basic, human ethical injunction to help those who are suffering around you. If you have the power to help, you must. Criticize the "consequences" of their actions all you want, but at least they are searching for solutions, and searching for solutions -- problem solving -- the very nature of living. Fanaticism is another thing. Fanaticism is their conservative opponents, kneeling before the altar of the invisible hand praying for salvation like the religious fanatics you hear about every once in a while who refuse to give their children medicine and let them die. This fanaticism, this complacent faith, this "purity of the heart" -- or is it purity of the market? -- is conservatism.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I hear that some form of outline for a compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats has been accomplished. $3000 billion cuts over the next 10 years and no raised taxes.

I don't know, it feels like it's a compromise to secure a raised debt limit, but that they were unable to reach an agreement that would do away with these problems in the long run.

He said the same thing about everyone who read his post.

One more unofficial pos rep for planet news.

Nice!

However, it is interesting to see how - here - "the invisible hand" concept is being connected to the ideology of conservatism while, from a marxist point of view, it's common to connect that concept with liberalism.

At the end of the day, it's a case of splitting hair, really. The concept of some kind of mystical invisible hand that follows the logic of the market, a logic superior to anything thought by the human mind, is traditionally used by hardcore supporters of capitalism. In some place it's labelled neoliberalism and in other places neoconservatism.

Ah, I thought it was some kind of "I love you *username*" thing, but I guess I was in denial there for a while.

Well, to be fair, communism is the most fanatical, religious political formation of them all, since it literally promises the construction of heaven on earth.

So yeah, I am a total, rabid fanatic. All I am saying is don't call liberals fanatics.

I doubt that you would find many western world marxists today that call themselves communists or followers of the ideology of the Soviet communism.

Stalinists, no. But Maoists and Leninists, yes.

Well, I can only answer for where I live myself... so I won't argue with you.

Correction: Hannity called it the Obama Recession, not Depression, a few days after he was elected, but it doesn't change he was being a completely partisan hatchet man who denied until just a week before the election the economy was even in trouble. When he did it was suddenly Obama's fault, even though he wouldn't even be President until next year. Sean Hannity is a little more likeable than Limbaugh, but he is still typical of the shrill partisanship and attack dog mentality that is typical of the right wing commentators.

I know that quote is a bit of a soundbite or text-bite if you will, but are you saying all or even most Liberals are agnostic or atheist? Do statistics support this? It is not really an actual question but from everything I have been able to find many consider themselves Christians and various other "single power" beliefs.

Also to the the pragmatic statement. I consider myself a conservative and I certainly consider myself fairly pragmatic.


I know this is not where you were going with your post, but it did make me think so sorry to hijack it a bit. Anyway these statistics are a bit dated but they still are very interesting, to me at least:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Here we go again. McConnell is working out a deal Senate Republicans can vote for and it is the House that is holding it up and objecting. And Yoda, it is completely on House Republicans if we default because Obama has been willing to compromise and they have been refusing to budge, boxing in Boehmer who was willing to be more flexible than his right wing flank. If a deal goes through most Democrats will vote for it in the House and just enough Republicans short of a majority and probably none affiliated with the Tea Party. They are a bad bunch.