All-Purpose NuILX thread for American Politics

Relevant excerpt from Ha-Joon Chang's "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" (looks like an interesting book, btw):

http://truthout.org/there-no-such-thing-free-market/1307462405

this is great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yncq4dwBhEc

Relevant excerpt from Ha-Joon Chang's "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" (looks like an interesting book, btw):

http://truthout.org/there-no-such-thing-free-market/1307462405

― o. nate, Thursday, December 8, 2011 3:32 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

v v good book

Obama's "my daughters" speech is so, so, so, so embarrassingly awful and grotesque

i think i'm pretty good about understanding what i consider his shortcomings, but i honestly did not foresee him going that route

local neighborhood news that feels emblematic:

The Lower Merion Board of Commissioners Finance Committee on Wednesday night voted unanimously to recommend that the full board amend the proposed 2012 budget in order to recognize an estimated $6.9 million in additional General Fund revenue from outstanding business taxes.

However, when it came to discussing what should be done with the $6.9 million, commissioners disagreed along political party lines, with Republicans proposing to give the some or all of the money back to taxpayers, and Democrats saying the money should not be refunded and instead be used for other purposes, such as paying down township debt.

http://balacynwyd.patch.com/articles/lower-merion-finance-committee-debates-how-to-allocate-6-9-million-in-unexpected-tax-revenue-02820b7d

Oh, paying off debt. I guess that's not a big Republican concern?

I shouldn't complain too much. We did approve a $4.4 million library renovation. Who is renovating libraries in America in 2011? We are!

regulations create jobs. fact.

this is as stupid as 'regulations destroy jobs'. 'regulations' is a word that encompasses both 'good' and 'bad' regulations.

I was simply pointing out that the inverse is true as well, something the GOP cannot acknowledge.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:46 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

true dat. my livelihood depends on regulations and shit. i r rent seeker yay.

i think i'm pretty good about understanding what i consider his shortcomings, but i honestly did not foresee him going that route

Whatever his other flaws, he was never mawkish.

I shouldn't complain too much. We did approve a $4.4 million library renovation. Who is renovating libraries in America in 2011? We are!

― Mordy, Friday, 9 December 2011 00:07 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

lol, bravo at repping for this, i hope you enjoy your library, that's great news.

"ask bin Laden" is pretty mawkish, in a time-honored lethal 'Murrican way

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-appeasement-20111208,0,7522921.story?track=rss

It's an effective line though. He should have included Gadhafi as well.

American forces didn't actually kill Ghadhafi, and if he had everyone would have trotted out those pictures of him shaking dude's hand

The point is Ghadhafi is no longer a threat though - not that US forces killed him.

handshake pics are hard to supress

The point is Ghadhafi is no longer a threat though - not that US forces killed him.

so then why should he have taken credit?

Because US air power was a major factor in driving Gadhafi from power?

This election might be the reverse of the usual Democratic advantages, in that Obama might be better off trying to change the subject from the economy to his foreign policy successes.

A mistake: voters, Democratic or otherwise, are in no mood to hear about our success killing evil Muslims.

I'm not so sure about that. The GOP nominees seem to think that there is some electoral advantage in out-hawking Obama on Iran.

and you think that crew of goblins has one brain among them?

Well, to some extent it may just be going through the motions. It's obligatory for GOP candidates to show they're more muscular on foreign policy than Democrats, so it may not be a major theme in the general.

OTOH, military action against Iran may be the only form of politically-feasible fiscal stimulus that a GOP President could support, given all their tough talk on deficits. So expect that option to start looking very attractive come Jan. 2013 if the economy continues to stagnate.

^^ sad but true

the 'attack iran' chorus needs to be understood in light of what spencer ackerman is talking about here

http://www.attackerman.com/the-awful-geopolitical-viability-of-an-undemocratic-israel/

ie i think that kind of saber rattling less about any geopolitics and only nominally about israel at all but about flattering conservative christian sensibilities

^^^

it's all empty gestures. nobody's going to attack Iran. (well, Israel might but I sort of doubt it)

If it's Romney, I tend to agree with you - if it's Newt, though, all bets are off.

Nope. Newt's been Speaker of the House; he had access to intelligence. Don't let his bombast fool you.

i know he is the first to say it, but newt gingrich really is a world-historical figure

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/gingrichs-unimpeachable-conservative-credential/

wrong thread i guess

Newt's been Speaker of the House; he had access to intelligence.

And Michele Bachmann's on the Intelligence Committee now. Having access to intelligence's not the same as having intelligence.

Newt is smarter than Michele, come on now

low bar

Pat Buchanan:

With Newt appointing as America's first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with Iran, a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

http://takimag.com/article/marco_rubio_vs_rand_paul/print#ixzz1g4c1zx3y

Pat prefers cultural warfare

An interesting tidbit in there too about Marco Rubio trying to fast-track Georgia into NATO.

yes that sage Pat Buchanan.

I wish I could share your serene confidence that all the ultra-hawkish campaign rhetoric is just rhetoric. Sometimes - not often, I know - politicians actually do what they say they are going to do. And nothing distracts Americans from a bad economy like a little old-fashioned armed combat.

well, yeah, look at the man in the Oval Office now.

I wish I could share your serene confidence that all the ultra-hawkish campaign rhetoric is just rhetoric

okay well two ridiculously improbably things have to happen for your fears to be warranted: 1) the GOP has to win the White House and 2) the GOP prez has to make the political calculation that a war within Iran really is a good idea and not just a great campaign promise.

well, yeah, look at the man in the Oval Office now.

well, Obama's pretty much fulfilled all his campaign promises re: foreign policy

shorter pat buchanan: all of those virtuous young white soldiers need to be cranking out catholic babies at home, not doing the jews' dirty work abroad

not that that sentence about the frontrunners' foreign policy noises are wrong a priori...

the Bush presidency turned out worse than anyone expected, but something happened in 2001 which gave it ballast.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were looking for an excuse to go after Saddam from day 1. The connection to 9-11 was tenuous at best. I imagine the neo-cons will be just as creative in their justifications this time around.

uh the neo-con wing of the GOP is mostly gone/discredited because of Iraq FYI

Look, we're already firing drone rockets at American citizens abroad. Our foreign policy is already as bad as it can be.

Kristol's praying for Rubio(?!), Frum's basically disavowed the modern GOP, Cheney's close to death, Dubya's in hiding, Wolfowitz and Perle have disappeared afaict etc

xp

Our foreign policy is already as bad as it can be.

hmm I think perhaps you aren't being imaginative enough here...

uh the neo-con wing of the GOP is mostly gone/discredited because of Iraq FYI

they moved on to posting under my name on ilx