Roostercogburn
|
The Politics of SpiteBy PAUL KRUGMAN
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
|
Outsider
|
| Quote: | The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand. |
One thing is for sure. It's better putting up with the spite than having them govern. It's an ugly picture alright, but one that is exposing the right wing of the republican party for what it really is.. | Quote: | | we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old. |
|
flyupsidedown
|
Say what you will. You're out in 2010 and you know it in your gut. The blood is already in the water. Your man is weak all around.
|
Outsider
|
Fly wrote:
| Quote: | | Say what you will. You're out in 2010 and you know it in your gut. The blood is already in the water. Your man is weak all around. |
Nah Fly, you'll have plenty of time before and after 2010 to blow off steam. The far right is a shrinking minority and instead of in the mainstream is off in the fringes, where enough votes just won't be there to get back in any kind of position of real power. Even if President Obama in not the best thing since life's bread, do you think the American people are going off somewhere in the fringes for solutions? Not hardly. Enjoy your obstructionist role, you'll be doing it a long time.
|
flyupsidedown
|
outsider: | Quote: | | The far right is a shrinking minority |
I think you are the outsider on this one. There is a renaissance of conservatism resurrected by all those things they have warned Americans about for years that socialist progressives would do. The prophecy is true. I you call a mill+ moms and pops, bikers, teens marching on Washington "out of the mainstream" , then I guess you would define mainstream as anarchists, race baiters, communists, homoerotic artists, and every weird ism out there. Is that right?
|
SkygreenLeopard
|
| flyupsidedown wrote: | outsider: | Quote: | | The far right is a shrinking minority |
I think you are the outsider on this one. There is a renaissance of conservatism resurrected by all those things they have warned Americans about for years that socialist progressives would do. The prophecy is true. I you call a mill+ moms and pops, bikers, teens marching on Washington "out of the mainstream" , then I guess you would define mainstream as anarchists, race baiters, communists, homoerotic artists, and every weird ism out there. Is that right? |
See how easily these guys swallow every lie Faux News spreads? 
A million plus.  ha!
|
Outsider
|
Fly
| Quote: | then I guess you would define mainstream as anarchists, race baiters, communists, homoerotic artists, and every weird ism out there. Is that right?
|
Nope, you missed again. Mainstream is the growing majority who's thinking is exactly the opposite of folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Salvage, Beck and Fly. You know, folks who are willing to look at all sides and don't see everything in black and white and who know that from time to time to get things done there has to be some compromise on some issues.
|
Outsider
|
| Quote: | | A million plus. ha! |
The shrinking minority can't count either. It's already shrunk from a million plus (in faux) to a few thousand (in reality terms.)
|
Outsider
|
Yep they are swallowing lies. Even Fox admits it, they got some judge to give them the OK to fool the foolable. Fly, you know you're too smart to be in that crowd. 
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
05/14/09 11:48
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.
The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
|
THE CURE
|
You're too funny fly. Republican polling numbers are even lower than they were last year this time. How do you think the dems will be out of power after 2010? Once health care reform passes the sky is the limit for Team Obama. You know it and I know it.
|
SkygreenLeopard
|
| flyupsidedown wrote: | | The prophecy is true. I you call a mill+ moms and pops, bikers, teens marching on Washington "out of the mainstream" , then I guess you would define mainstream as anarchists, race baiters, communists, homoerotic artists, and every weird ism out there. Is that right? |
See, the difference between you and I is, I deal in facts and reality. You tend to deal in "prophecies," propaganda, conspiracies and outright lies.
Via FactCheck.org
| Quote: | We’ve often observed an odd quirk in the behavior of political partisans; they tend to exaggerate even when they could make their point without doing so.
The most recent example is the weekend protest in Washington, D.C., at which a very large number of people turned out to criticize the Obama administration. Fox News reported that "tens of thousands" turned out, as did all major news outlets. The Washington, D.C., Fire Department put the number between 60,000 and 70,000, or over 75,000, depending on the news organization reporting. The New York Times said the number was "well into the tens of thousands" and that "the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours."
That’s not a small group.
And yet, organizers claimed that 1.5 million attended. And they quoted ABC News as saying the same thing, which ABC News did not. The 1.5 million figure (and even larger ones) have since been picked up and repeated by conservative bloggers, usually attributing the number to ABC News.
If the 1.5 million figure is accurate, it would rival the 1.8 million who were officially estimated to have attended Barack Obama’s inauguration in January, which stands as the largest crowd ever seen in Washington.
No precise count is possible for such gatherings; people don’t pass through turnstiles and nobody takes attendance. Even using aerial reconnaissance and sophisticated analysis of crowd density has its pitfalls, and that wasn’t done for the Sept. 12 protest.
But for the record, and until better evidence comes along, here’s what has been reported about the size of the Sept. 12 event:
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported:
| Quote: | | Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [Protest organizer Debbie] Dooley estimated the size of the crowd, which stretched for blocks and spilled over to the National Mall, at 1.5 million, but that was unlikely based on the size of crowds at previous events in the capital. The Associated Press estimated the crowd’s size in the tens of thousands. |
And indeed, The Associated Press lead its story with this:
| Quote: | | AP: Tens of thousands of protesters fed up with government spending marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday … |
Fox News agreed, reporting:
| Quote: | | Fox News: The tens of thousands of protesters marched to the U.S. Capitol chanting various slogans and waving posters … |
The Wall Street Journal reported:
| Quote: | | WSJ: A spokesman for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services estimated the crowd at "in excess of 75,000" people. Local and federal law enforcement authorities don’t provide crowd estimates. |
ABC News reported:
| Quote: | | ABC News: [A]pproximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department. |
Crowd Inflation
Nevertheless, the event’s organizers claimed that ABC’s estimate was 1.5 million, and many conservative bloggers picked this up and repeated it, without checking. But that is not true. ABC never said that, and later reported:
| Quote: | ABC News: Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally Saturday that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.
At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands." |
Kibbe later apologized for attributing the number to ABC News, writing on his blog: "With a dead IPhone, I had been shown tweets from a number of different folks behind the stage citing the ABC estimate. They didn’t say it. I regret misrepresenting the network, as their coverage that day was fair and honest." But he maintained that crowd estimates in the "tens of thousands" amounted to "misreporting the significance of the event."
Organizers of such events, regardless of their partisan leanings,
commonly claim higher numbers than public officials or news reporters estimate. When the National Park Service produced an official estimate that 460,000 had turned out for the so-called "Million Man March" in 1995, organizers threatened to file a lawsuit. After that, Congress prohibited the Park Service from making official estimates. |
You see? Regardless of these facts, regardless of reality, TO THIS DAY there are still people (like Fly) who run around referring to the "million" who showed up in Washington.
The Gullible Party!
|
coastie
|
One of you guys posted a gleefull post when unemployment dropped to 9.4 percent a couple of months ago.
It's at 9.8 percent now, and most economists agree it will be well over 10 percent by early next year. Next summer when the races are heating up, unemployment will probably be 11-12 pecent. Not good for the majority party ever.
I agree with fly - there will be big gains by republicans November 2010.
|
doomster
|
| coastie wrote: | One of you guys posted a gleefull post when unemployment dropped to 9.4 percent a couple of months ago.
It's at 9.8 percent now, and most economists agree it will be well over 10 percent by early next year. Next summer when the races are heating up, unemployment will probably be 11-12 pecent. Not good for the majority party ever.
I agree with fly - there will be big gains by republicans November 2010. |
Coastie....long before then my friend, after a few more months of Obooma, they'll turn republican over night.
|
Outsider
|
doomster wrote:
| Quote: | | Coastie....long before then my friend, after a few more months of Obooma, they'll turn republican over night. |
I wouldn't count on it.
|
|
|
|