• comment on a post Taking on Obama within the Democratic Party over 4 years ago

    but it's not clear that there'll be the supply. Who could and would run a credible challenge? Howard Dean? He supports the war in Afghanistan. Feingold? Can't see it. And while I welcome a challenge from the left (on both economic and war-peace issues), I wouldn't welcome the racial division it would cause (assuming the challenger weren't black.) 

    At this point it seems that the only antiwar challenge may come from Lou Dobbs, who's called for the troops to come home from Afghanistan. 







  • comment on a post ME war fallout continues over 4 years ago

    Because this unjust war is being waged by a Democrat. 

    And because the outrage six years ago wasn't antiwar outrage so much as anti-Iraq war outrage.

    In any case, we're not getting out of Afghanistan or Iraq, ever. 

    "Counting the remaining bases in Iraq -- as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s August 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. “combat troops” from the country -- and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000.  Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known.  What we do know -- from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea -- is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering."


  • comment on a post The Pivot from Stimulus to Deficit Reduction over 4 years ago

    The deficit commission can't work; it'll be rejected by both liberals and conservatives in Congress. That's the best thing about it: it'll have no power, thankfully. 

    And of course the Obama administration isn't just focused on deficits in the long term but in the short term, and yeah, that runs counter to what should be the first priority, for reasons both substantive and political. Steve Kyle puts it well:

    "What I find puzzling is that the Administration apparently seems to think that cutting spending is a bigger political winner than getting people jobs. No reading of the data I have ever seen would support that."




  • comment on a post An Evolving and Expanding Mission in Afghanistan over 4 years ago

    So Says Michael Moore. No, actually, that's what the top American general there said.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12498615 4654218153.html

    The truth or a bid for more troops? Both, I'd say.

  • As for his not being "credible," to the extent that that is true, it's only because activists like you decide he's not credible.

    It's self-fulfilling, and we will be rewarded with a another moderate Senator representing a liberal state.

  • I spend my time and money supporting progressives.

    You're free to do otherwise.

  • Yuck, "left wing"! Gross.

    Your comment exposes you.

    That faceless guy got a nice chuck of the vote against Hillary.

  • comment on a post Maloney Won't Run Against Gillibrand over 4 years ago

    Time for progressives to get behind the progressive in the race, the antiwar, prolabor Jonathan Tasini.


    Yes, Gillibrand's seems better (less bad) than she was a few months ago, but there's really no contest on substance between the two.

    A diehard progressive or someone who was a Blue Dog last year?

  • Your found me out!

    I haven't yet been persuaded that the reforms under consideration, except possibly the House Bill, would bring about "drastic improvement."

  • I wasn't being judgmental toward other progressives. I was being judgment toward Obama.

    And while compromises need to be made, a bill shouldn't be so compromised it doesn't work well (fails to contain costs, for example.) This deal alone doesn't render reform a failure but it's part of the problem.

  • So it can do what it wants and Pharma has to hold it fire. Only if Obama allows it to show up in the final product will Pharma, according to the terms of the sordid deal, be allowed to go after it.

  • Let's buy off all the corporate interests for fear of their advertising prowess and pass a shitty bill.

    It's amazing that this is the one line in the sand that Obama is willing to draw.

  • comment on a post Congress should reject Obama's deal with big Pharma over 4 years ago

    Pelosi has said the House isn't bound by Obama's deals. Of course, the measures will be taken out in committee, but at least it'll show that Billy Tauzin doesn't run the entire government.

  • on a comment on Defending DOMA? over 5 years ago

    Thanks for this.

    When there are no hard and fast rules, there are no hard and fast rules.

    Perhaps it's not wise for the Obama DOJ to refuse to defend the law, maybe it would be breaking with precedent to do so, it would certainly be out of character, but let's dispense with the lie that he doesn't "have the right to." He does.

  • on a comment on Defending DOMA? over 5 years ago

    Liberal friends?

    I was talking about people like Lawrence Tribe, Obama's old teacher. Unlike you, I'm not willing to accept that the constitutionality of the law has been "established."


Advertise Blogads