by EvilAsh, Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:21:32 AM EDT
Some of this is paraphrased from the Huffington Post . . .
There's a lesson here about what the Republican leadership thinks of this country.
"Although both sides have said that failing to increase the limit would be catastrophic for the economy, they differ on whether a debt increase should be tied to efforts to decrease the deficit, and the scope of those efforts"
Cornyn said he thinks the Senate will eventually vote to raise the debt ceiling, but he is willing to let Democrats do it alone so they will be attacked for allowing the government to go further into debt.
“There’s not going to be a default ...on the debt. We’ll just let our Democratic friends vote to raise the debt limit in the Senate,” he said."“There’s no incentive at all for Republicans in the Senate to vote for it,”
Did you get that? Both Democrats and Republicans agree that a failure to raise the debt limit would be a catastrophe for our economy. But Senator Cornyn believes that the welfare of the economy of this country does NOT constitute an "incentive" for Senate Republicans.
The question is, is the health of our fragile economy enough of an "incentive" to raise the debt ceiling for congressional Republicans? By Cornyn's words, apparently not.
by EvilAsh, Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:12:48 PM EDT
(cross-posted anywhere that will take me.)
In the past few months, I've been thinking about the progressive economic position. And there's something I've noticed; there is no progressive economic position.
There are a lot of reasons for that. First of all, there IS NO COMPREHENSIVE PROGRESSIVE ECONOMIC IDEAL. It's fitting, I guess. A vast majority of progressive goals are small-bore. It's about equal rights and it's about helping the disenfranchised, it's about helping the poverty-stricken. And there is a lot if disagreement about how it should come about.
But with all of our goals, I have never seen a comprehensive approach that provides an alternative to the conservative Ayn Rand approach. And, absent a comprehensive approach, the right pulls out socialism, communism, or whatever else they can yank out of their asses. And you know what? They're RIGHT to pull those approaches out of their asses. Because we don't have anything to counter the clear image that they have.
I believe our goal should be to create an image of our economy which envisions our economic goals for our country. It needs to be something simple, something that the masses can rally around in the same way that the conservatives can rally around free-market capitalism.
My suggestion is below the fold.
by EvilAsh, Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:11:04 PM EDT
With the recent article in the Washington Post on how McCain plans on going starkly negative for the remainder of the campaign, I had an odd reaction.
It felt a little like victory.
No, I'm not getting ahead of myself. There is still a gargantuan amount of work to be done to put this thing away. But I still can not quite contain my sense that this move may be the final nail in the McCain campaign's coffin. Join me below the jump for details.
by EvilAsh, Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EDT
With my DVR, I just finished the debate. And I had a couple of thoughts that I'd like to get responses to.
My first thought on McCain is that it looked like he was daring Obama to bring up Palin. He baited Obama over and over again with repeated comments on earmarks and spending, but Obama didn't take the bait. This is important, because Obama attacking Palin would likely have been a loser. (Black man attacking white woman.)
It looks like McCain's other purpose in this debate is to paint Obama as naive and uninformed. At my count, he called Obama naive more than 20 times during the debate, so it was obviously the prepared emphasis. He called him naive on Iraq, naive on Iran, naive on Afghanistan, naive on Syria, naive or Russia, and naive on North Korea.
The problem with this approach? Clinton tried it and it didn't work.
Obama, on the other hand, looked presidential. There were still a few "umms" and "ahhs" and stutters, but not nearly as many as in past debates. Obama has learned how these things work, and those who follow him know he learns his lessons well.
His statements were forceful and to the point. MUCH more so than in the primary debates. The impression I got was that he was more about establishing himself than about making McCain look bad. He agreed with McCain on occasion, brought up McCain's shortcomings when appropriate, but he didn't press the issue.
The traps he didn't fall into? He didn't look weak. He didn't look indecisive. He didn't look elitist.
by EvilAsh, Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:04:46 PM EDT
So obviously, there has been a lot of discussion about McCain's move today to suspend campaigning in order to provide leadership on the Wall Street bailout plan.
So, it behooves us to see what McCain actually thinks about the recent economic disaster that has rocked the country.
Follow me below the bump for the details.
by EvilAsh, Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:14:25 AM EDT
There have been a lot of argument about what should be done with AIG. A lot of so-called liberals have spoken out against corporate buyouts. I say so-called because this is, by far, the most socialistic action our government has ever taken. And, by republican standards, everything socialistic is liberal, so we should all be jumping for joy.
But liberals are pissed about the golden parachutes for CEOs. However, while absurd CEO packages are a symptom of the underlying problem, they are not the cause.
Follow me after the jump.
by EvilAsh, Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:17:46 AM EDT
Those who know me or have read my previous comments know that I am two things.
- Absolutely for Obama
- Not inclined to electoral panic.
But I must say that, relatively speaking, and taking all factors into account, McCain won the convention bounce.
For my admittedly convoluted reasoning, follow me after the jump.
by EvilAsh, Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EDT
No one else has done it yet, so I'll post an open diary for your immediate reactions to Hillary's speech.
by EvilAsh, Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EDT
On the horizon is perhaps the single most important election of the past thirty years. Our economy, military, infrastructure, legal structure, and foreign alliances are all literally falling apart. The nation that created the U.N. is now seen as a larger danger than Iran, Russia, and North Korea by a majority of the world, including Europe. In a nation of laws, those laws have been broken and openly ridiculed by those who are supposed to uphold them. Our neglected infrastructure already has a body-count that will likely grow. Our military is far past the breaking point, only held together by the sheer willpower of our men and women in uniform who are carrying ever-heavier burdens. Our economic future is bleak, with no signs of recovery for at least a year or more.
Our president is willing to ignore the Constitution, lie to suit his needs, invade foreign countries without cause, and ignore those in need. In the past eight years, the top 1% has grown exponentially wealthier, while the bottom 90% have struggled to stay even.
by EvilAsh, Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:04:44 PM EDT
As tonight's results pour in (gotta love Oregon's haul-ass mail in vote counting) and Obama soars past the half-way mark on pledged delegates, I was thinking about this race and what it has meant.
And I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks to Hillary Clinton.
Please hear me out below the jump.