I don't have much time for politics right now, but let me just say that I'm as unmoved by Republican demands for more bipartisan gifts as I was by Democratic whining after 2004. They won the election. This gives them the right to govern in our system. It may be wise, as a matter of politics, to extend the olive branch where possible, and as a matter of principle, not to piss off conservatives just because you can. But they have no obligation not to do what they think is best for their party, and the country, just to make Republicans happy. If you want control back, build a coalition and win an election.
As an aside, I have, in fact, been pretty impressed with Boehner so far. He's doing a very good job of making the case for principled opposition, rather than simply being the chief spokesman for party of no.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
He regularly uses the phrase "abortion industry". How can anyone take him seriously?
I agree with Megan. From the clips they've been showing on TV, Boehner is respectful, makes sense, and gives an alternate view on various proposals. That's just what we want from our opposition.
The yearly cost of abortions is about 540 million dollars (1.2 million abortions times $450 per abortion). Abortions are mostly done by places that specialize in abortions. Why isn't that an industry?
Given what's on tap from many of our best and brightest Washingtonians these days, I wouldn't really mind a party of no....
The yearly cost of abortions is about 540 million dollars (1.2 million abortions times $450 per abortion). Abortions are mostly done by places that specialize in abortions. Why isn't that an industry?
Because that would puncture the gilded gossamer entrapments of noble support for a fundamental liberation right, allowing practical realities of crass convenience and the almighty dollar to be glimpsed through the tear. Can't have that.
Why isn't that an industry?
In the same way that no one seriously entertains the idea of a "mastectomy industry". Mere specialization and dollar amount spent per year don't turn a fucking medical procedure into an actual *industry*. It's absurd on its face. Take two seconds and compare the legion of ways your imagined "industry" is wholly a divorced from say pharma.
If specialization and dollar amounts don't turn something into an industry, I'm at a loss to come up with something that does.
(pro-choice personally, by the way)
If LASIK is considered an industry (which I believe it is), abortion can certainly be deemed an industry.
I'd call cosmetic surgery an industry.
Peter wrote: In the same way that no one seriously entertains the idea of a "mastectomy industry". Mere specialization and dollar amount spent per year don't turn a *&!H@MSTER*%^ medical procedure into an actual *industry*. It's absurd on its face. Take two seconds and compare the legion of ways your imagined "industry" is wholly a divorced from say pharma.
I love it when my posts get an unintended proof of concept exactly one post later.
It is strange to me that the Democrats don't want Republican support on the stimulus package. Are they really that confident it is going to work? Wouldn't it be a huge political win for the Republicans if Congress and Obama spend $800 billion over Republican objections and the economy DOESN'T recover?
In the same way that no one seriously entertains the idea of a "mastectomy industry".
According to my dictionary, any commercial enterprise can be deemed "industry". A network of clinics performing medically unnecessary elective surgery for profit, supported by an army of lobbyists to protect its existence, certainly qualifies.
Then again, I'm both pro-choice and pro-capitalism. I don't share the left-wing habit of thinking "the X industry" is necessarily a slur on X. Industry is a GOOD thing.
As an aside, I have, in fact, been pretty impressed with Boehner so far. He's doing a very good job of making the case for principled opposition, rather than simply being the chief spokesman for party of no.
Ouch.
Two beatdowns in one week: first Greenwald and now Beutler. Dang.
Wow. Any of you people claiming that an "abortion industry" exists care to take it up with your McMegan? Will said blogger declare a mastectomy/HIV-AIDS/Parkinsons/abortion industry exists as industry is reasonably defined?
They won the election. This gives them the right to govern in our system.
Of course, the Republicans won their respective offices in Congress as well, and certainly not by promising to do whatever the Dems wanted to do, but instead by promising to support programs they thought made sense and to oppose -- even through filibuster -- programs that did not make sense.
So unless you believe that it was the Dems job in 2004 to roll over and support whatever harebrained schemes Bush came up with, it follows that it is not the GOPs role to support -- or even to vote Senate cloture on -- Obama plans that the GOP likewise believes are poorly thought out or bad for the country.
So what this really comes down to is whether there are enough bipartisan gifts to attract at least 2 GOP senators to vote for cloture. Unless the GOP shows surprising unity in opposing cloture, that is all Obama will need to move his plans forward. But presumably he will need to throw them some kind of bone to get the 2 votes.
This could be a banner year for federal spending in Maine and Philadelphia.
Yes, however I thought Obama's statement "I won" was a stupid retort. He is also foolish to wade into the swmaps of Rush Limbaugh land - this will only get the gators riled up.
The problem with "I won" isn't that it's untrue; it's that it's -- in the strict sense that the ancient Greeks meant the word -- hubris. Not error, but pride, which (as the Greeks noticed) has a nasty way of leading even heroes to overreach and ruin themselves.
Yes, Obama won in 2008. And Bush won in 2004; remember his public ruminating about "political capital"? Yes, Obama's completely entitled to act as if his side had no possibility whatsoever of being wrong. So was Bush. In Bush's case, nemesis came along rather decisively. The Dems (and their true believers on this blog's combox) would like to believe that they're magically immune to proud overreaching and its consequences. However, the Dems will be disappointed.
And so it goes, around and around.
The principled John Boehner:
Talk about your not letting abject ignorance interfere with opining! Turns out that particular CBO report does not exist.
Our the lesson to be learned, yet again:
Republicans, as with Republicans who pretend to be libertarians, are not really principled. At least not in a good way.
The problem with "I won" isn't that it's untrue; it's that it's -- in the strict sense that the ancient Greeks meant the word -- hubris. Not error, but pride, which (as the Greeks noticed) has a nasty way of leading even heroes to overreach and ruin themselves.
Very true. But it may have been worth it just to call the Republicans's bluff for a change; they of the incessant, chickenhawkian tough talk.
I can't wait for the first right winger to say (innocently or not) words to the effect of "That boy really needs to know his place." Should we get a pool going?
Here's a clue: There's no question whatever that President Obama won, & by a significant amount. Compare that to 2000 & 2004, when the elections were "close," to put it mildly.
And yet George Bush insisted that he had "political capital," & tried to ram a bunch of crap no one wanted down the throats of the American people.
It seems clear that Prez O. has to remind the right of that "reality" they think they can shape w/ their whining.
Here's a clue: There's no question whatever that President Obama won, & by a significant amount. Compare that to 2000 & 2004, when the elections were "close," to put it mildly.
Selective memory is as selective memory does. Taking more than 50% of the popular vote is pretty much a clear mandate, which Dubya did in 2004 (50.7%) and Obama did in 2008 (52.9%). I trust you're not hanging your hat too high on Obama's electoral landslide, since that was an artifact of the same system that gave Dubya the 2000 election by a thin margin in spite of the fact that Gore won the popular vote by a thin margin.
However, the Dems will be disappointed.
Quite likely. But Obama playing dress up and announcing "mission accomplished" on an aircraft carrier or invading another country for the hellofit seem wildly unlikely. There's hubris, and then there's hubris.
I doubt that Republican bipartisanship will go so far as to take on the favorite sayings of the Democrats - the party of the Bull Connor and the KKK. Stop acting as if it were Republicans who implemented Jim Crow.
And then there are those modest souls who claim that they are the ones they've been waiting for (?), that a light will shine down from above convincing all to vote for them, which will cause the oceans to recede.
No hubris there at all.
And then there are those modest souls who claim that they are the ones they've been waiting for (?), that a light will shine down from above convincing all to vote for them, which will cause the oceans to recede.
To answer your question, the "ones they've been waiting for" was a simple campaign slogan. Where did you hear the part about the "light will shine down from above convincing all to vote for them, which will cause the oceans to recede"? I haven't heard that. That's some serious hubris there. Someone should be called to account for it.
It also seems exceedingly unlikely that President Obama will ever utter something with more hubris than
I doubt that Republican bipartisanship will go so far as to take on the favorite sayings of the Democrats - the party of the Bull Connor and the KKK. Stop acting as if it were Republicans who implemented Jim Crow.
Indeed, it was southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms who were the primary forces behind the awful Jim Crow Era. What ever happened to those dudes, anyway?
When I refer to Republicans, I usually mean the modern Republican party, the one since Nixon's Southern Strategy. Lee Atwater, Rush Limbaugh, the Council of Conservative Citizens (The CCC--get it?), Trent Lott. That sort of thing. You dig?
I doubt that Republican bipartisanship will go so far as to take on the favorite sayings of the Democrats
It would be kind of funny if Robert Byrd accidentally let a remark like that slip, though. His brain's been out to lunch this last few years.
Hubris isn't pride, but arrogance. Quite a difference. Personally I hope Boehner and McArdle keep talking, very loudly, in public. Nothing like letting the unreconstructed right-wing crazies reveal their ignorance and lack of competence.
It would be kind of funny if Robert Byrd accidentally let a remark like that slip, though. His brain's been out to lunch this last few years.
As The Editors once observed, "It’s funny how the only racist Dixiecrat conservatives can’t forgive is the one who repents."
Hubris isn't pride, but arrogance. Quite a difference.
Or there would be, if "arrogance" didn't mean "overbearing pride". :)
Yglesias:
Let a thousand "Hehs" bloom.I’m pretty impressed with John Boehner’s ability to zero in like a laser on the least-defensible possible position.
Let's see. California is spending money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. Obviously the proper solution is to take money from the rest of the country and give it to California. That's really the only defensible position, I guess. Only a crazy Rethuglican like Boehner would be against that sort of thing, or suggest that maybe California should, I don't know, live within its means for the first time in a generation.
Sure, some states actually budgeted responsibly. Boy, don't THEY feel stupid right now. Sensible people like ed and Matt Yglesias realize that the correct approach to state budgeting is to spend until you can't spend anymore, then come hat in hand to your Washington sugar daddy when your credit cards max out.
California is spending money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse.
Remember when Dan and Boehner were bitching about this at the Federal level in the early Aughts? Me neither. Maybe we should trump up another unnecessary war. That's the ticket!
And did you read the post? Did you get what Yglesias was talking about? Lemme know when you do, mm-kay?