Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1365.9 | 1.9 | 0.14% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2318.7 | -22.7 | -0.97% |
| Oil (WTI) | 102.8 | 0.1 | 0.06% |
| LIBOR | 0.467 | -0.002 | -0.43% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.57 | -0.230 | -0.29% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.02% | -0.02% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 171 | 0.2 |
Equity markets are generally flat after early strength was given back on disappointing economic data. Bonds have reversed earlier declines and MBS are up as well.
The PPI showed that wholesale price inflation remains broadly in check, although the core numbers (ex-food and energy) were slightly higher than expected, running at 2.9%. Initial Jobless Claims were much higher than expected, 380k vs 355k. The trade deficit was lower than expected due to a drop in imports. Futures sold off on the numbers. Some of the other indicators (NAPM, ISM) have been coming in weak as well, signalling the economy might be headed for a slowdown.
The market may be picking up on the sheer amount of fiscal tightening that is scheduled to begin on Jan 1, as the Bush tax cuts expire and the budget cuts from the debt ceiling debates kick in. Of course, no one really wants this to happen, but it is an election year, and they will take effect if nothing happens to stop it. So the market is probably going to start handicapping this a little.
Bill Gross continues to cut Treasuries and buy MBS. This is basically a bet that the Fed will continue Operation Twist in a different way after it expires in June – by trying to influence mortgage rates directly by buying current coupon MBS and repoing short.
RealtyTrac released its US Foreclosure Market Report for Q1, noting that foreclosure activity was the lowest since Q407. Activity dropped in the non-judicial states and increased in the judicial ones. Foreclosure starts have been ticking up, and everyone expects a wave of foreclosures to hit the market as the shadow inventory gets liquidated.
Janet Yellen said that the Fed may have to maintain ultra-low interest rates even beyond 2014. Yellen is one of the more dovish members of the FOMC, and her statements stand in contrast to other members who are noting pricing pressures.
In earnings, Google and Nationstar report after the close. JP Morgan and Wells Fargo report Friday before the open.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
In local news, housing starts in Tampa are up 26.8% in 1Q.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mike. I thought this was an interesting read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-why-you-should-care-about-antibiotics-in-animal-feed/2012/04/12/gIQAOEfZCT_blog.html
Having grown up on a farm with livestock pre-widespread antibiotic use, I have wondered about its effect on the food supply. Ezra quotes some cost estimates but does not link to them. Mike and Kelley, what do you think of isolating classes of antibiotics for human use, only? Sounds workable and effective to an ignorant lawyer, but may make no sense in bacteriology/immunology terms. What do y’all think?
LikeLike
One last budget related link, as I leave lunch:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/cutting-costs-could-do-a-lot-for-defense/2012/04/11/gIQANDKQBT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_fedinsider
Old Walter Pincus is my fave at WaPo. Has always ferreted out the nuts and bolts stories at DOD, the costs, the overruns, the weapons that work and the ones that don’t.
LikeLike
Eklein wrote
” A 2005 study out of Tufts University estimated that antibiotic-resistant infections add $50 billion to the annual cost of American health care. On the other side of the coin, a National Academy of Sciences study found that eliminating non-therapeutic antibiotics from animals would cost about $5 to $10 per person per year.”
$3 billion sounds a lot scarier than $10 per person. But if the $50B figure is correct, it should be an easy decision.
Could it be true that our cheap food AG policies are actually costing us money?
LikeLike
Mike
Are you seeing any improvement in the economy in your neck of Tampa Bay?
Over here on the “left” side of the bay..lol…we’re humming. Our best 1st Quarter ever and April is already slammed full….we are just hoping it keeps up.
LikeLike
But if the $50B figure is correct, it should be an easy decision.
It’s all about externalities. The chicken producers don’t pay the medical bills. The anecdotal evidence of early onset pubescense being caused by growth hormones supposedly not in the food chain is frightening.
LikeLike
Obama’s War on Women continues apace:
LikeLike
…female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
That is probably because the women are largely in lower level positions than the men. Are you advocating that Obama should promote more women to upper level staff postions regardless of merit so that he can meet an equality quota?
That is a very progressive position for you.
LikeLike
yello:
Are you advocating that Obama should promote more women to upper level staff postions regardless of merit so that he can meet an equality quota?
No. I am pointing out how easy it is to create the impression of a “war on women”, even where one almost certainly doesn’t exist.
That is a very progressive position for you.
Yes, it would be, although color me surprised to hear you say that filling equality quotas regardless of merit is a “progressive position”.
LikeLike
“largely in lower level positions than the men”
one of the reasons I left government was the pay scale. I hated being lumped in with other employees. The inability to negotiate my own salary and benefits was infuriating.
LikeLike
My boss is the only woman in the entire department so she probably makes double the median salary of the men. Should I complain?
LikeLike
Mark:
what do you think of isolating classes of antibiotics for human use, only?
Theoretically, it is a good idea. However, the seven classes listed in Rep. Slaughter’s bill encompass most of the known antibiotics, which would leave few for agricultural purposes. Another problem is that sometimes the bacterial resistance is the result of increased expression of a protein that pumps the drugs out, so it would make the bacteria multi-drug resistant. Also, Big Pharma isn’t turning out very many new antibiotics. I don’t know what the answer is, but limiting antibiotic usage in livestock is a good idea, in a public health sense. Obviously, it would also increase the price of meat because more animals would either die or fail to thrive.
Perhaps your daughter will have a better idea about all this ….
LikeLike
ruk:
Are you seeing any improvement in the economy in your neck of Tampa Bay?
The housing market here is slowly picking up. Available inventory is at a low right now, but there is a backlog of foreclosures just waiting to hit the market. So, Pinellas will probably do much better than Hillsborough for a while.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on April 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm said:
Are you advocating that Obama should promote more women to upper level staff postions regardless of merit so that he can meet an equality quota?
That is a very progressive position for you.”
Interesting that you accept appointing people to “postions regardless of merit so that he can meet an equality quota” as a progressive position.
Progressives have been arguing for years that this is not what in fact what they are trying to do.
This is also why Romney shouldn’t try to beat the Democrats at the pander game. Republicans will always lose and the only way to win is not to play.
LikeLike
George Will comes out for drug legalization:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-the-us-legalize-hard-drugs/2012/04/11/gIQAX95QBT_story.html?hpid=z2
LikeLike
Speaking of weird preoccupations with sex:
LikeLike
” This is also why Romney shouldn’t try to beat the Democrats at the pander game. Republicans will always lose and the only way to win is not to play.”
I agree that neither side is likely to succeed at pandering to the other’s natural constituencies; but if you think WMR is not a panderer you haven’t been paying attention.
LikeLike
“bsimon1970, on April 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm said: Edit Comment
” This is also why Romney shouldn’t try to beat the Democrats at the pander game. Republicans will always lose and the only way to win is not to play.”
I agree that neither side is likely to succeed at pandering to the other’s natural constituencies; but if you think WMR is not a panderer you haven’t been paying attention.”
I stand corrected. It should probably read:
“This is also why Romney shouldn’t try to beat the Democrats at the pander game based on gender and ethnicity. Republicans will always lose and the only way to win is not to play.”
LikeLike
Interesting to see the developing Obama’s War on Women theme. Jennifer Rubin ties Obama, or at least tries to, to Hilary Rosen’s comment and there are all sorts of other posts at WaPo on the topic. I could barely get through Rubin’s column and began wondering if that’s how some of you felt reading the PL.
LikeLike
Mike, thanx for pointing out that the plan to isolate seven classes of drugs just about covers everything. I wonder if Ezra knows that.
Ashot – considering the alacrity of the BHO campaign’s disavowal and condemnation of Rosen, the BHO campaign takes the matter as immediately damaging and worth an immediate reply. The PL hosts tried to minimize the issue – and it will be a non-issue soon enough – but the BHO campaign obviously thought it was far more damaging then Sargent, et al, did.
Rubin, of course, is spinning as fast as she can. As incredibly insensitive and tasteless as Rosen’s remarks were, she apologized quickly. Consider Limbaugh and the “slut”. And there is some equivalence there – neither of those personalities actually work in campaigns or for parties, but they are both identified by the public as close to their parties of choice. But Rubin calls Rosen a WH “advisor”. BS, apparently.
Somebody is going to figure out how to make a buck off the “War on Women” theme soon or it will go away. If it goes away, having run its course, it will probably leave behind conservative women who have one more reason to think liberals devalue motherhood, and liberal and moderate women who think conservatives want to dismantle the welfare state, first by removing women’s reproductive health from the mix. If the theme sticks around, a whole lot of issues are going to go begging in the campaigns that ought to be addressed. IMO.
LikeLike
Mark:
As incredibly insensitive and tasteless as Rosen’s remarks were, she apologized quickly.
I’m not sure I would say that.
Her first response to the swirling controversy was to basically double down:
And her subsequent apology, issued some 13 hours later, might have sounded a bit more sincere had she not linked to her doubling down post for her “more fulsome” views on the issue. Although depending exactly on what she meant by “fulsome”, maybe it was sincere.
As an aside about those “more fulsome views”, I found this comment particularly ironic, if all too typical:
A classic instance of projection. Liberals insist on getting the Feds involved in “women’s health issues” – funding of “family planning”, insurance mandates for contraception, SCOTUS control of abortion policy – and yet it is somehow conservatives who are turning these issues into a “political football”? Sure.
LikeLike
“A classic instance of projection. Liberals insist on getting the Feds involved in “women’s health issues” – funding of “family planning”, insurance mandates for contraception, SCOTUS control of abortion policy – and yet it is somehow conservatives who are turning these issues into a “political football”? Sure.”
This is something particularly maddening about current progressivism. Its partisans seem to specialize in mounting an attack or campaign over something and then attacking the opposition for being obsessed with that something. “Stop complaining about my hitting you!”
LikeLike
Point taken, Scott. Rosen’s apology is obviously a grudging one. I don’t ever care for comparing faults, tit-for-tat, and I won’t here. Leave it that Rosen’s statement and her apology sucked.
From the POV of many, not liberals, the issue is not getting the Feds involved in women’s health, but in keeping the Feds and states from selectively winnowing out women’s health issues from health issues in general.
I agree with Brent, if it was not obvious from what I wrote.
I agree with Ashot, if it was not obvious from what I wrote.
I don’t agree with QB, if it was not obvious from what I wrote. I wonder if anyone has looked at the numbers of abortions pre RvW and post. I wonder if there is not a dramatic difference, but I suspect there are actual stats out there.
As to the politics of RvW, not the legal opinion and its progeny, and not the actual medical issue, I agree with Scott that it was the best thing that ever happened for social conservatives.
Edit – Internet sources say there are no accurate reports of the incidence of illegal abortions, pre-1973, because they were – illegal.
Duh.
LikeLike
mark:
From the POV of many, not liberals, the issue is not getting the Feds involved in women’s health, but in keeping the Feds and states from selectively winnowing out women’s health issues from health issues in general.
Can you give an instance of this selective winnowing?
LikeLike
Can you give an instance of this selective winnowing?
Rick Perry refused Medicaid funding for poor women’s breast cancer screening.
LikeLike
Mark:
Rick Perry refused Medicaid funding for poor women’s breast cancer screening.
If this is what you are talking about, that is an outrageous mischaracterization. My understanding is that Perry signed a law that would exclude abortion providers (ie Planned Parenthood) from also acting as a medicare provider of breast screening, and in response the Feds pulled medicare funding from Texas.
This is precisely the kind of false framing of issues, also represented by the whole “War on Women” trope, which I find so distasteful, and it is yet more evidence that the term “women’s health” is just a euphemism for “abortion”. This is in no way at all an effort to “selectively winnow out” women’s health issues from more general health issues. It is strictly a function of legal abortion, which means Roe. It is plainly an attempt to deter abortions within the framework of Roe, which prevents states from doing so in a more efficient, logical way. To frame it as a function of “women’s health” rather than abortion is to purposely ignore the very heart of the issue. If your concern is truly “women’s health” and not legalized abortion, why not advocate for Texas affiliates of Planned Parenthood to eliminate abortion services, which would allow them then to act as medicare providers of breast screenings?
(Forgive me if this is not what you were talking about, and if it was not, please link to a more detailed explanation of what you mean.)
LikeLike
Scott –
Were abortion illegal in TX, your framing would be correct. Abortion is legal in TX, so your framing is flat wrong.
This state is willing to sacrifice poor women’s health to try to bully PP into not referring patients to docs for abortions. That is the frame.
edit: Notice that the state is not willing to give up all medicaid to bully PP, only women’s breast screening funding.
Why share the pain widely when the state can pick on poor women who don’t vote much, and give no campaign contributions? Only the health of poor women is on the chopping block here.
My classmate and retiring R Senator, KBH, spoke to this recently. I don’t have time to find the clip.
LikeLike
Mark:
Were abortion illegal in TX, your framing would be correct.
But Texas has not chosen to make abortion legal. Texas is not allowed to make abortion illegal, which is precisely the point. Again, the issue is Roe, not some desire to separate women’s health issues from more general health issues.
This state is willing to sacrifice poor women’s health to try to bully PP into not referring patients to docs for abortions. That is the frame.
Or, put another way, Planned Parenthood is willing to sacrifice poor women’s health in Texas in order to retain the ability to refer women to abortion providers. Or, put another way, the federal government is willing to sacrifice poor women’s health in order to keep Planned Parenthood in the abortion business.
Or, put most accurately, Roe has prevented states from directly regulating abortion in the manner that each sees fit, and as a consequence they have been forced to regulate it indirectly, which sometimes has unintended and undesireable consequences.
Again, the real thing at issue here is abortion and the legal framework forced upon states by Roe, not “women’s health”. We should be honest about that.
LikeLike
Mark:
Notice that the state is not willing to give up all medicaid to bully PP, only women’s breast screening funding.
First of all, Texas did not “give up” anything. The Feds chose not to extend an already existing waiver for the program, and thus is defunding the program, against the wishes of the state.
Second, Perry has said that the state will cover the loss of federal funds in order to keep the program funded. (Where the funds will come from is, admittedly, unclear.)
It may be fair to characterize this as an attempt to “bully” PP. But that simply makes my point. What is going on here is not an attempt to “winnow out” women’s health issues from generic health issues, but is instead an attempt to oppose abortion by legally ostracizing those who provide them.
Again, we should be honest about this fact, not obscure it. The contentious issue here is abortion, not “women’s health”.
LikeLike
Mark:
As to the politics of RvW, not the legal opinion and its progeny, and not the actual medical issue, I agree with Scott that it was the best thing that ever happened for social conservatives.
I don’t know whether or not Roe has been good for social conservatives. What I have said is that I think Roe is the only reason abortion has been such a politically divisive issue for so long.
LikeLike
What I have said is that I think Roe is the only reason abortion has been such a politically divisive issue for so long.
OK.
LikeLike
Scott and jnc,
My tongue was firmly in cheek but since I refuse to use smileys and you are so used to dealing with quota-happy moonbats, I can see how you might think I was serious. But it does seem to be the logical solution to the inequity you discovered. Now that you are on board with that, we can fix the funny numbers about Romney’s claim that 92% of the job losses during his administration have been women.
LikeLike
ashot:
Interesting to see the developing Obama’s War on Women theme.
This seems to be the Romney campaign’s modus operandi this time around — take an area of perceived weakness and use it to attack the opponent. Kind of Rovian, actually.
LikeLike
Area of weakness or strength?
LikeLike
Area of weakness or strength?
Well, for example, WMR’s poll numbers among women are low, so he attacks BHO on commitment to workplace equality for women. WMR was labeled as a “flip-flopper” so he attacked Santorum on his lack of consistency on certain issues. Stuff like that — take your weakness (and/or the opponent’s strength) and turn the tables.
LikeLike
I think he is just playing the hypocrisy card.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if anyone around tonight was interested in the book review this weekend, but we’ve had to change the date until the weekend of May 4th. Sorry about that, but if you haven’t had the chance to read Emily’s (allbutcertain) book, this will give you that chance.
LikeLike
Mark,
My problem with Rubin’s article wasn’t her “outrage” over Rosen’s remark. It was more about the her connecting it to Obama and arguing it would be so damaging. Her list of ten points was just awful I thought. Like I said, it made me wonder if some our conservative libertarian posters felt the same about the PL. Well…I don’t wonder if QB did. I know he did.
LikeLike
ashot,
“Well…I don’t wonder if QB did. I know he did.”
But I hold my nose and wade through.
I did not read Rubin on Rosen; I basically never read her.
I thought Rosen’s comments were a typically nasty partisan feminist Democrat smear. (Look at all those adjectives with no commas!) Also extremely ignorant and hypocritical. But it’s the season.
LikeLike
But it’s the season.
Indeed. I should say that I would agree that it was an ignorant and hypocritical comment. I know Rosen went on to talk about Ann Romeny not knowing about tough financial choices and I’m assuming the PL post on the topic got into that. But that defense is crap in my opinion. And as Scott pointed out, Rosen didn’t apologize initially. She stuck to her guns.
LikeLike
In some ways, I think Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen confirm the biases and stereotypes each party has of the other.
The left sees Ann and imagines the rich soccer mom driving a gargantuan Land Rover with a “Its a child, not a choice” bumpersticker shopping for fresh oysters at Balducci’s in Greenwich, CT.
The right sees Hilary Rosen as plucked out of the University of Wisconsin queer studies faculty with a “God’s coming and she’s pissed” bumper sticker on the back of her Prius.
LikeLike
” with a “God’s coming and she’s pissed” bumper sticker on the back of her Prius.”
Thanks for not making it a subaru.
LikeLike
Scott: If your concern is truly “women’s health” and not legalized abortion, why not advocate for Texas affiliates of Planned Parenthood to eliminate abortion services, which would allow them then to act as medicare providers of breast screenings?
They have already done that. Eight TX PP organizations that do not provide abortions have filed suit “for excluding them from participating in a program that provides contraception and check-ups to women, saying the new rule violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association.” See this.
LikeLike
okie:
Thanks for the link. So the law is a bit more general than I thought, ie it excludes anyone even affiliated with an abortion provider, not just abortion providers themselves. But my point remains. The law is clearly the result of a desire to restrict access to abortion, not a desire to winnow out women’s health issues from more general health issues. To present it as such is, again, to ignore the very heart of the issue.
LikeLike
Again, the real thing at issue here is abortion and the legal framework forced upon states by Roe, not “women’s health”. We should be honest about that.
That is your opinion, Scott. You are welcome to it. That others don’t share it doesn’t make them dishonest.
BTW, are you going to also posit the states got prevented from directly regulating separate-but-equal because of Brown v. Board of Education and were forced to regulate it indirectly?
LikeLike
msjs:
That others don’t share it doesn’t make them dishonest.
Not necessarily, of course. But it is nevertheless my opinion that attempts to frame opposition to abortion as an attack on “women’s health” are deceptive and wrong.
BTW, are you going to also posit the states got prevented from directly regulating separate-but-equal because of Brown v. Board of Education and were forced to regulate it indirectly?
Well, it is certainly true that the consequence of B v BoE was to prevent states from maintaining so-called separate but equal facilities, ie segregation. And I suppose it is possible that some states attempted to maintain segregation indirectly in a post-Brown legal environment, although I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind. BTW, if I am not mistaken the whole concept of separate but equal derived from a Supreme Court decision, not from any state law.
Does this have any relevance to our current discussion?
LikeLike
Our 4th Amendment rights are being winnowed away, new claims for unemployment insurance jumped, FL’s Stand Your Ground laws are in the crosshairs with Zimmerman being charged, and CT is on its way to repealing the death penalty. North Korea launches a (failed) rocket, there’s a coup attempt in Guinea-Bissau, conflict continues in Mali while there appears to be a truce in Syria, China’s economic growth has slowed, and nuke talks with Iran are imminent.
But the focus here is on abortion and the idiotic comments of some talking head I never even heard of before yesterday.
Interesting.
LikeLike
Mike:
+1
LikeLike
Mark:
+1
Sorry to have wasted your time.
LikeLike
Sorry to have wasted your time.
No problem, Scott – you didn’t waste my time.
I wasted my time.
I am far more interested in FP, personally, than I am in domestic issues, but I went off looking up stuff like birthrates, and abortion stats, and managed to tell more about my personal life as a former callow youth to the NSA and God and everyone on a weblog than I ever should have.
Repeat – not your problem.
LikeLike
Mike-
We only briefly discussed the idiotic Rosen comments before turning to the abortion issue. While the other topics you raised are clearly important, I don’t see why aboriton isn’t equally important. From one perspective legalized abortion results in millions of murders. From the other perspective, the right to abortion is a Constitutional right that is being winnowed away. Those seems pretty important and worthy topics.
That said, we should probably spend less time on the topic. People’s positions are pretty firmly entrenched on the issue and there are other topics of equal importance and interest that we could be discussing.
LikeLike
I gather Mike, you find the topic unworthy?
LikeLike
Scott, no one said his/her time was wasted. Consider chilling out a wee bit.
LikeLike
msjs:
Scott, no one said his/her time was wasted.
I guess I completely misunderstood the point of Mike’s post, and/or Mark’s endorsement of it.
LikeLike
How come the President didn’t call Ann Romny like he called Sandra Fluke?
Wierd.
LikeLike
He didn’t call her anything. 🙂
LikeLike
Mike
+1
BTW. Is it really the opinion of the posters here that a sitting House member, someone put forth as VP material by such R luminaries as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, has stated that there are approximately 80 members of the House who are card carrying Communists?
Have we become so numb to tea party wackery that we simply don’t notice it anymore?
We have R House members, here in Florida Cliff Stearns, who are STILL flogging the birth certificate issue! These are not pundits like Limbaugh or Stearns, but sitting R House members. Do they not have some higher responsibility than engaging in this wackery?
Really…do we simply take for granted that a certain portion of the R party are going to utter total nonsense and we’re simply expected to look the other way.
Why has nobody approached Speaker of the House Boehner about his problem with rampant commie infestation in the House. Shouldn’t the Speaker be aware of this and sounding the alarm?
LikeLike
ruk:
…has stated that there are approximately 80 members of the House who are card carrying Communists?
I thought he called them card-carrying Marxists. And that is definitely nonsense. Marxism doesn’t issue cards.
LikeLike
Oops edit…like Limbaugh or ROSEN…sorry
LikeLike
“Speaker of the House Boehner about his problem with rampant commie infestation in the House”
you have to elect a House before you know what’s in it.
LikeLike
RUK – Really…do we simply take for granted that a certain portion of the R party are going to utter total nonsense and we’re simply expected to look the other way.
A certain portion of politicians in general are “going to utter total nonsense”. See Dems words on War on Women, Buffet rule, Fluke, quoting Reagan…
LikeLike
Dave
And so you REALLY compare using RWOW, based in actual issues btw, or do you simply deny the existence of all the women posters here who have tried to educate you..the Buffet rule…a tax debate perhaps worth having WITH
Whether or not the President is a citizen or his birth certificate is fraudulent? Really Dave you’re comfortable with elected R house members still flogging the absurd?
How about West’s comments. Are you suggesting that calling 80 members of the House card carrying communists is “equivalent” to debating tax fairness…social policies effecting womens’ lives…do you read the ladies who post here or simply dismiss them out of hand?
Dave…you’ve just compared legitimate policy debates to out and out foolishness…UNLESS of course you too believe there are 80 card carrying commies in our House and that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.
IF you believe that I’m sorry for insulting you…the rules of this place call for equanimity and I DO respect and admire the rules of ATIM.
LikeLike
Nova
???? The House has been elected….not by Boehner…but he is the Speaker..and currently the titular head of the R party..perhaps McConnell outranks him forgive my ignorance.
My point is simply that if there are 80 card carrying members of the Communist Party in our House of Representatives shouldn’t that be a major concern.
Mind you now I wish to clearly differentiate here…generic name calling is one thing…calling someone a socialist is nothing to be proud of but perhaps can be dismissed under Dave’s “everybody does it” excuse. Specifically talking about card carrying Communists literally harkens back to the days of that great Republican Senator Joe McCarthy….I thought those methods had been discredited and decried by members of BOTH parties.
LikeLike
bad joke, ruk — nothing more. we didn’t know they were commies until we elected them.
LikeLike
Scott,
I thought he said they were Trotskyites, we, er they do issue cards. Are we sure it’s “Marxist?” Sounds a lot like “Maoist” too. I mean, CNN has recently made a mistake understanding what’s said in an audio recording.
Hell, if he said “Maoist” we may have a Shining Path problem on our hands!
Gulp.
LikeLike
Nova
Sorry to be so dense…also sorry for that Flyers bit of luck
Scott
Point taken you are correct on both counts.
LikeLike
not worried — get them back tonight.
LikeLike
Sorry, ruk, but I do take issue with Scott’s/Troll’s comments. Per Huffington (yeah, ugh):
“West’s campaign also sent over the transcript of the actual exchange that took place during the town hall to show that West was asked directly about the role of communists in the House.
“Moderator: What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialist?
“West: It’s a good question. I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” [emphasis added]
LikeLike
okie:
Does the Congressional Progressive Caucus issue cards?
LikeLike
Scott, what difference would that make? I have no interest in going down the semantics rabbit hole. West stated he believes a good number of members of the American legislature are members of the Communist Party.
LikeLike
Foolishly phrased, but then last week potus said the Ryan budget is social Darwinism. I suppose adding “card carrying” makes it different.
LikeLike
okie:
Scott, what difference would that make?
None at all. It was a joke. (Cue msjs….)
West stated he believes a good number of members of the American legislature are members of the Communist Party.
Just reading the transcript, it sounds more like a snarky slam on the nature of the CPC than an attempt at an accurate accounting of dedicated communists. But admittedly I haven’t actually listened to the exchange, so that could be wrong.
LikeLike
Scott, sorry if I misinterpreted.
LikeLike
RUK, I would rather member of Congress on both sides discuss issues without resorting to pandering, divisive labels to the arguements. That goes for both the RWoW and Joe McCarthy Jr. If the issue is abortion, argue it. If the issue is heading towards European-styled socialism – discuss it. Discussing the “Buffet rule” is fine – coming from the angle that it is a Reagan idea and if you don’t agree with it you are nuts is not. So, yes, I am suggesting that the way in which these issues are brought up and discussed are equivalent…in a poor way.
LikeLike
I agree with Dave! in general about the role of Congress. There is another guy at WaPo – a beat reporter – I like named Al Kamen. He covers nuts and bolts biz in DC. For years our Congress has been inattentive to essential housekeeping. This structural issue has occurred with Ds, with Rs, and in split Congresses. Read Kamen’s reporting of all the stuff they don’t do and read it every week and you begin to suspect that most of them are lazy, venal, or stupid.
I thought trying to pass the Bowles-Simpson stuff was worth a try – it got soundly and bipartisanly swamped. Whoever the 22 Ds and 16 Rs who voted for it were, I like them. So I think 9/10 of them are just window dressing. I think the American public gets caught up in POTUS as benevolent king and totally misses that our Senate does not vote on appointments for years. I don’t know what it will take to change this that might actually really happen. I can vote L in protest the way I voted for Perot. It probably won’t mean squat.
Neither party will change the Senate rules to make it easier for the majority to operate because they know they will not be in a permanent majority.
Neither party would cut back executive authority to “detain”.
Neither party has been able to pass anything but omnibus appropriations for years [only slightly overstated].
The idea that they could still do something like tax reform or anything complicated is hard to swallow.
LikeLike
Dave
Agree with the vast majority of your post.
A few questions.
1.) Do you question the validity of Obama’s birth certificate?
2.) Do you consider that grounds for a “serious” debate?
3.) Do you believe there are card carrying 80 “Communists” in Congress?
Okie
I stand corrected you are right…we can get the evidence from West’s own campaign.
.
Everybody feel free to watch the video(s) and make your own judgement.
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2012/04/allen-wests-campaign-releases-its-own-video-of-his-communist-party-claim-about-democrats/
Is this in the context of a firing up the base speech…or is it delivered in the context of a serious answer to a question at a town hall meeting?
LikeLike
“The idea that they could still do something like tax reform or anything complicated is hard to swallow.”
The system is designed to fail. It’s designed for it to be near impossible to pass legislation. Its working as intended.
LikeLike
RUK,
1.) Do you question the validity of Obama’s birth certificate? I don’t. If someone gives me a good reason to I would. The same could be said of my wife’s cert, too.
2.) Do you consider that grounds for a “serious” debate? A debate on what exactly? Whether the cert is legit? I don’t know that that is as much a debate as a determination of facts. So I would not consider it any kind of debate, serious or otherwise. But do I think there is anything inherently wrong with asking a question? No. Do I think it is a productive use of a congresspersons time? No more so than kissing babies or fundraising or questioning if John McCain was eligible to be president because he was born in the Panama canal zone or any number of other things.
3.) Do you believe there are card carrying 80 “Communists” in Congress? No. I don’t think there are 80 card carrying Communists in Congress. Do I think that there are 80 congressmen that would like to see us move towards a European style socialist society? Yes. Do I think that is a good idea? No.
LikeLike
Dave
Thanks for your answers.
LikeLike
RUK – “Are you suggesting that calling 80 members of the House card carrying communists is “equivalent” to debating tax fairness…social policies effecting womens’ lives…do you read the ladies who post here or simply dismiss them out of hand?”
I don’t think I am dismissing womens’ issues by stating that coming to the discussion from a RWoW angle is not conducive to discussing or solving any issues they have. I think that has been fairly well documented over the last couple weeks here and I don’t think anybody needs a rehash of that. If it comes across as if I don’t think that a number of women have issues with certain Republican and/or conservative policy initiatives or positions, that is not my intent. I will gladly put in my two cents when we discuss abortion or whether the gov should fund PP or mandated invasive medical procedures. But I won’t discuss the RWoW in a general sense because to me it is fruitless to do so.
“Dave…you’ve just compared legitimate policy debates to out and out foolishness…UNLESS of course you too believe there are 80 card carrying commies in our House and that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.”
As stated above, I don’t believe that the cert is a fraud, that there are 80 card carrying commies in congress, that there is a Republican War on Women, that Ronald Reagan was too liberal to get out of this years primaries, that the Ryan budget is social Darwinism or that not endorsing the Buffet rule means you are part of the off the charts crazy right. But I’m funny that way.
LikeLike