All-Purpose NuILX thread for American Politics

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

Secretary of State John Bolton will smother the Iranian mullahs to death with his lethal mustache!

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

unwarranted optimism here

Kristol's praying for Rubio(?!)

THE GOP'S ANSWER TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Secretary of State John Bolton will smother the Iranian mullahs to death with his lethal mustache!

mustache rides of DEATH

Wolfowitz at least was last seen asking questions of the GOP field at the debate hosted by heritage and AEI. they're not gone!

But how you believe something is as important as what you believe. It doesn’t matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn’t have the right temperament and character, stay away.

ugh, brooks trying to blow my mind in the last paragraph of his column today.

unwarranted optimism here

I'm pretty optimistic it will get worse.

how can it get worse if it's already as bad as it can be

by the magic of it being Friday afternoon and need a cocktail.

Wolfowitz at least was last seen asking questions of the GOP field at the debate hosted by heritage and AEI

oh shit yr right! yeah that was a weird Q&A, so many hatable people coming out of the woodwork to ask questions/score points (didn't Grover get one in?)

http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/c/c8/Marshallgrover.jpg

wait so cocktails are going to make something worse????

I think yr doing cocktails wrong

check, please!

yeah that was a weird Q&A

not as weird as the huckabee free publicity for GOP AGs debate.

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

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, December 9, 2011 4:47 PM (17 minutes ago)

idk dude, like maybe the "intellectual" (lol) neocon wing is less visible but have you seen these debates?

i mean tbf i have not seen these debates but i have READ about these debates and they all sound pretty crazy/neoconny!

In my experience reading comments left on right wing blogs and sites, I've concluded that there's an abyss between the GOP foreign policy establishment and Regular People; the latter are practically isolationist -- except, of course, when it comes to Israel.

idk the 'base' seems schizophrenic, they want a hyperstrong military but no foreign entanglements; no discursive give and take with any other people, but a president who can still make the world obey.

so they kind of seem like idiots, is what you're saying

"kind of"

in other news, I don't know why I just subjected myself to another Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer

DOCTOR Krauthammer.

Kraut, if you're feelin' nasty.

contains so many weird mischaracterizations (the stimulus was a "giveaway" to teachers and unions? federal investment has never built successful industries? zuh?)

someone should remind Kraut every Friday when he's smirking on FOX that he worked for Mondale.

I just... the airline industry (actually the entire aerospace industry)? the internet? the oil industry?

also don't understand how Obamacare is an "entitlement"

Health care is not a right, Shakey. We have an oligation as a society to ensure that sick people don't become leeches on our system.

but Obamacare doesn't say you have the "right" to healthcare - in fact it obligates you to pay for it! and the gov't isn't paying out money to people from Obamacare, unless I'm forgetting something...?

sarcasm alert btw

well it expands medicaid eligibility, for one thing

xp

I know I know my sarcasm detector is working don't worry

xp

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/09/barack_obama_s_loser_liberalism.html

Shakey and I are bros.

Shakey thinks GOP winning presidency is "ridiculously improbable"

not a Nate Silver fan^

Obama will hurl his $1 billion on top of the GOP nominee and crush him (assuming Michele Bachman continues to be Michele Bachman and therefore she loses). This will not prevent the GOP from sweeping the southern tier of the USA, apart from Florida and possibly New Mexico. Obama will flood the Midwest with money, until it is so bloated with campaign cash that it waddles.

here's an interesting take:

"Big Government Is Bad for Democracy"
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41078

"bureaucracies in fact are subject to very little effective democratic oversight. However, corporate and other special interests are profoundly affected by regulatory and other rulings issued by bureaucrats, which creates a strong incentive to either "capture" or otherwise influence these decisions."

not sure what the remedy would be, outside of tightening up the lax oversight that has allowed/ encouraged regulatory capture. and of course regulating the regulators is a fool's errand without a complete overhaul of campaign finance (lol right)

(caveat: Wilkinson is, if I'm not mistaken, a self-proclaimed "liberaltarian", but he's usually pretty thoughtful and not terribly far off-the-mark - even if he doesn't offer any specific solutions here)

supreme court is gonna hear the SB 1070 case

sans kagan

nice to know we'll finally have the SCOTUS position on Suggest Bans

wait is this the part where i throw a hissy fit about being followed from thread to thread?

i hope not. making a joke, man. relax.

so was i cuz

"oh my SB 1070
uh oh
oh my SB 1070"

http://www.sohobluesgallery.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/David_Bowie_MSG.jpg

Re: Wilkinson

He's otm about the eventual capture of regulatory agencies by their regulated industries. It's an easily observed phenomenon.

Democratic oversight and correction of bureaucracies is admittedly difficult, but that is just the nature of representative democracy. Getting large numbers of voters organized around ANY issue is difficult, and without voter interest in an issue, representatives have small incentive to pursue it, unless they take a personal interest in it.

But Wilkinson's apparent implication - that it might be better to abandon regulatory atempts and falling back to laissez faire - is totally unsupported by evidence and relies merely on inverse logic. If all he was doing was pointing out the general existance of the problem, with no idea of a solution, then he's being both unoriginal and unhelpful.

But Wilkinson's apparent implication - that it might be better to abandon regulatory atempts and falling back to laissez faire

i can't say for sure (which is one of the weaknesses of the piece), but i would assume that's what he's implying. and as such, your assessment is very much otm.

But Wilkinson's apparent implication - that it might be better to abandon regulatory atempts and falling back to laissez faire

as nonsensical as it may seem to non-conservatives, but sadly i know plenty of conservatives/libertarians/whatevahs who have concluded that the answer to regulatory capture is to just eliminate regulatory bodies altogether. best i can figure out, is that their view is based mostly on theology or pop-psychology (i.e., original sin so why bother?) when it isn't based on self-interest or slavering fawning on those who are/would be regulated.

Seems more like the fallacy of thinking that if doing something one way is flawed, then doing its opposite must fix the problem.

short of electing better people who will hopefully appoint better bureaucrats, what are workable options in dealing with regulatory capture?

(& I obv agree, just "getting rid of big government" in order to deal with corrupt or ineffectual regulatory agencies is beyond daft)