[OAW]

So on Friday before Healthcare Reform passed we heard this ...

Originally Posted by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina

The first casualty of the Democratic health care bill will be immigration reform. If the health care bill goes through this weekend, that will, in my view, pretty much kill any chance of immigration reform passing the Senate this year.

Then on Monday after Healthcare Reform passed we heard this ...

Originally Posted by Sen. John "Country First" McCain, R-Arizona

Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber's bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Now given the unprecedented level of Republican obstructionism during the Obama Administration as evidenced by their record numbers of Senate filibusters and holds ... for the Republicans to now threaten to withhold their non-existent cooperation is utterly farcical on its face. But let's examine this in the light of some very important upcoming legislation.

Financial Reform - As we all know the economy has suffered a severe blow in recent years. Lax oversight of Wall Street, inordinately risky behavior on the part of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and irresponsibility on the part of the financial sector and to a certain extent consumers have all been identified as culprits in the situation. After the near collapse of the US (and the world) economy we had near universal calls for financial reform to "right the ship" and ensure that the country would not have to go through something like that again in the future.

National Security - Today it was announced that the Obama Administration and the Russian government of President Medvedev have reached an agreement for a historic new treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia. This treaty is designed to replace the expired 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It also includes a mechanism for verifying that each side complies — an element that was absent from a 2002 deal made with the Bush Administration, known as the Moscow Treaty, that accelerated the weapons reductions laid out in the 1991 treaty.

The Moscow Treaty set limits on both sides' strategic nuclear warheads at between 1,700 and 2,200. The new deal, whose provisions have not been made public, is expected to lower that to about 1,500.

It has been widely reported that Wall St. is pretty much back to its old ways now that they have returned to profitability and most of the largest institutions have payed back TARP funds and are no longer restricted when it comes to their financial practices. The "too big to fail" institutions are now even larger since they have swallowed up their smaller, weaker rivals. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world is undoubtedly in the national interest of the US. Less nuclear arms pointed at us by a former Cold War rival is a good thing. And less nuclear arms that could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists is an even better thing.

So is the mentality that appears to be spreading among Republican members of Congress indicative of "country first" or "sour grapes"? We already see Republican Senators blocking the holding of committee hearings out of pure unadulterated spite:

Republicans have blocked Senate committee hearings for a second consecutive day to protest moving healthcare fixes under special budget rules.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked for consent to hold a hearing Wednesday afternoon but Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) objected. Burr said he was acting on behalf of Republican colleagues.

So what's next? Block financial reform and put the country at increased risk for another economic meltdown? Block the ratification of the nuclear treaty with Russia and put the country at increased risk or nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists? All because the GOP is having itself a temper tantrum?

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

It's a pretty silly strategy if they are trying to position themselves as the reasonable, bipartisan ones going into the midterm elections. It risks being perceived as taking the ball and going home.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It has been widely reported that Wall St. is pretty much back to its old ways now that they have returned to profitability and most of the largest institutions have payed back TARP funds and are no longer restricted when it comes to their financial practices. The "too big to fail" institutions are now even larger since they have swallowed up their smaller, weaker rivals.
OAW

By "too big to fail," do you mean Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Which one? Wall Street's alleged excesses pale in comparison with the graft and outright socialist vote-buying at HUD, FHA, FNMA and FHLMC. Until we clean those up, worrying about salary structure at a handful of big, obviously-easy-to-pick-on banks is just stupid. The Graham/McCain agenda is related to this -- starting in 2005. Hasn't been fixed yet, even.

On another note:
Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. If they actually wanted to fix any of the things they're always b*tching about, they could do it tomorrow without one Republican vote. So the senators are telling them to do just that, that's all.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by finboy 

By "too big to fail," do you mean Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Which one? Wall Street's alleged excesses pale in comparison with the graft and outright socialist vote-buying at HUD, FHA, FNMA and FHLMC. Until we clean those up, worrying about salary structure at a handful of big, obviously-easy-to-pick-on banks is just stupid. The Graham/McCain agenda is related to this -- starting in 2005. Hasn't been fixed yet, even.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? You mean Bush's "Ownership Society"? When it comes to the mortgage market there is plenty of blame to go around. Between Democrats and Republicans. Between mortgage originators, mortgage servicers, investors, and home buyers. And no ... I'm not talking about the salary structure on Wall St. at all. In light of what has happened their compensation practices are certainly "unseemly" ... but that's not the fundamental issue here whatsoever. If a financial institution is "too big to fail" then it would only seem logical and prudent that it's "too big to exist". It certainly flies directly in the face of what Adam Smith had in mind for capitalism and free markets. So the question becomes, does the government step in and institute a regulatory structure to prevent a handful of companies from being able to takedown the entire US economy when they run amok? Or does it listen to the blind ideology of those who extoll the virtues of unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism despite the very obvious and recent example that the market is not always self-policing?

Originally Posted by finboy

On another note:
Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. If they actually wanted to fix any of the things they're always b*tching about, they could do it tomorrow without one Republican vote. So the senators are telling them to do just that, that's all.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Because the Republican Senators are filibustering and placing holds on even the most routine legislation ... a 60 vote majority is required to get anything done. If they really believed that "elections have consequences" they would allow the election winners to govern on their own if they didn't want to be involved. Or better yet, behave in a bipartisan manner which is to "get in where they fit in" and try to shape and incorporate some of their ideas into the legislative agenda set by the election winner. What it is certainly NOT is to behave in a manner where their expectation is that the only legislation that the majority should pass is what the minority will agree to. And then after that .... simply offer the voters an alternative at the next election. Instead, what the Republican minority has done is embark upon a strategy of abject obstructionism in hopes that they can portray the election winners as "ineffective". The thinking being that this will play to their advantage by further exacerbating the voter's frustration with Congress ... and then capitalizing on traditional anti-incumbent sentiment during mid-term elections.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

By "too big to fail," do you mean Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? Which one? Wall Street's alleged excesses pale in comparison with the graft and outright socialist vote-buying at HUD, FHA, FNMA and FHLMC. Until we clean those up, worrying about salary structure at a handful of big, obviously-easy-to-pick-on banks is just stupid. The Graham/McCain agenda is related to this -- starting in 2005. Hasn't been fixed yet, even.

Perhaps if Mr. McCain and friends want reform of these agencies, they could work in Congress to get this reform incorporated into a broader financial reform bill. Then everyone could get what they're looking for, and get reform in ALL the areas people think it's needed.

Lots of Republicans seem to be complaining that the health care law doesn't address tort reform. Perhaps if the Republicans were interested in serving their constituents, they would have worked with Congress to have tort reform included in the overall package. They may have even gotten other concessions in exchange for their bipartisan support. Maybe they would have been able to reduce the spending further.

We won't know, because they appear to be more interested in throwing a tantrum than in serving their constituents.

On another note:
Elections have consequences. The Democrats won. If they actually wanted to fix any of the things they're always b*tching about, they could do it tomorrow without one Republican vote. So the senators are telling them to do just that, that's all.

If this is how we're going to operate, where whoever gets the 51% gets to call all the shots, we're in for quite a roller coaster ride.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now given the unprecedented level of Republican obstructionism during the Obama Administration as evidenced by their record numbers of Senate filibusters and holds ...

Don't embarrass yourself, this is just some Democrat talking point. Record numbers, sure. Go back and look at the Senate's record under Daschle with respect to federal judges and related appointments.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Instead, what the Republican minority has done is embark upon a strategy of abject obstructionism in hopes that they can portray the election winners as "ineffective". The thinking being that this will play to their advantage by further exacerbating the voter's frustration with Congress ... and then capitalizing on traditional anti-incumbent sentiment during mid-term elections.

OAW

They should ask John Kerry how well that strategy tends to work out.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Don't embarrass yourself, this is just some Democrat talking point. Record numbers, sure. Go back and look at the Senate's record under Daschle with respect to federal judges and related appointments.

Just a talking point huh? Well here's a little something on the abuse of Senate holds on Obama's nominations:

Almost every day, the news releases go up on the White House Web site and go out to reporters: “President Obama announces more key administration posts,” they read.

Trouble is, many of those administration posts are being held up in the Senate in a political do-si-do that is traditional on Capitol Hill but seems to have become more tangled than ever in partisanship.

Of the 200 or so Obama nominations pending, some 75 have gotten through committee but were being held up for various reasons in the Senate, administration officials and Congressional staff members said. During their last gasps of official business after the health care vote on Thursday morning, senators cleared 35 nominees by unanimous consent — far short of the 60 that administration officials had been hoping to get through by the end of the year.

Thing have even degenerated to the point where Republican Senators are putting blanket holds on ALL of Obama's nominees. Without regard for qualifications or the Administration's ability to govern.

And when it comes to filibusters, I'll just let this speak for itself ...



Simply put, when I say that this is an "unprecedented level of Republican obstructionism" ... this is borne out by the facts. So with respect to the thread topic the question becomes ... is "doubling down" on such obstructionism as Senate Republicans have threatened and already begun to do good for the country? Or is this some "If I can't have my way I'm going to take my ball and go home!" type of sh*t?

OAW

[DrTacoMD]

It seems like the Republicans (particularly senators, but representatives as well) have gotten themselves onto a runaway train.

If, after all the rhetoric they've used, they turn around and try to work with the Democrats on these important issues, they may appear weak to many of their core supporters. After all, Fox News says the Democrats are evil Nazi socialists, right? So why should our boys in red be playing with them at all? At this point, giving even an inch could be construed by a clever opponent as softness in the primaries.

On the other hand, if they do decide to play the "screw you guys, I'm going home" game, any Republican in a swing state will find their voting record rubbed into their face through the entire election, quite possibly losing them a seat.

The only clear solution here would require the entire Republican party to simultaneously make an about-face and sit back down at the table. But unless the entire party did it at once, any single Republican who tried would be shunned from the rest of the party.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

It seems like the Republicans (particularly senators, but representatives as well) have gotten themselves onto a runaway train ......

Indeed.

This reminds me of what President Obama said at the House Republican Retreat several months ago with regard to the Healthcare Reform debate ....

Originally Posted by President Obama

But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we've put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I've already discussed, making sure that there's choice and competition for those who don't have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that's how you guys -- (applause) -- that's how you guys presented it.

And so I'm thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, I mean, I'm just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's not just on your side, by the way -- it's on our side, as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

Off the cuff dialogue with House Republicans on their own turf. No tele-prompter. And 100% on point.

OAW

[Chongo]

Woody Allen has a better idea of how Obama should get things done.
Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, <em>really</em> | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Click here to find out more!
Top of the Ticket
Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »
Top political strategist Woody Allen thinks Obama would get much more done as dictator; No, really
May 18, 2010 | 2:22 am

Woody Allen

The notorious and formerly funny movie director Woody Allen is apparently frustrated with the cumbersome operations of American democracy too.

The one-time-father-now-husband-of-his-daughter tells the Spanish-language magazine La Vanguardia that the United States' Democratic Smoker-in-Chief could accomplish a whole lot more from his White House if he didn't have so many disorderly, annoying people objecting, distracting and criticizing him all the time.

Such social messiness has been known to occur in functioning democracies, even cinematic ones, although less often on celebrity-strewn movie sets under the direction of a dictatorial director.

"It would be good...if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly," Allen is quoted as saying.

Allen is also said to have said:

I am pleased with Obama. I think he is brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.

With healthcare and the economy now fully fixed, no doubt one area in urgent need of sweeping Obama-style reforms would be targeting movie reviewers who write negatively about Hollywood. Or about its politician favorites.

[The Final Dakar]

Who cares?

[Lint Police]

cute, another lefty pissed cause his party can't get anything done. maybe you should blame bush.

[DrTacoMD]

Oh who gives a flying crap what Woody Allen says?

[OAW]

Woody "divorce-my-wife-and-marry-my-stepdaughter" Allen?

OAW

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? You mean Bush's "Ownership Society"? When it comes to the mortgage market there is plenty of blame to go around. Between Democrats and Republicans. Between mortgage originators, mortgage servicers, investors, and home buyers. And no ... I'm not talking about the salary structure on Wall St. at all. In light of what has happened their compensation practices are certainly "unseemly" ... but that's not the fundamental issue here whatsoever. If a financial institution is "too big to fail" then it would only seem logical and prudent that it's "too big to exist". It certainly flies directly in the face of what Adam Smith had in mind for capitalism and free markets. So the question becomes, does the government step in and institute a regulatory structure to prevent a handful of companies from being able to takedown the entire US economy when they run amok? Or does it listen to the blind ideology of those who extoll the virtues of unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism despite the very obvious and recent example that the market is not always self-policing?



Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Because the Republican Senators are filibustering and placing holds on even the most routine legislation ... a 60 vote majority is required to get anything done. If they really believed that "elections have consequences" they would allow the election winners to govern on their own if they didn't want to be involved. Or better yet, behave in a bipartisan manner which is to "get in where they fit in" and try to shape and incorporate some of their ideas into the legislative agenda set by the election winner. What it is certainly NOT is to behave in a manner where their expectation is that the only legislation that the majority should pass is what the minority will agree to. And then after that .... simply offer the voters an alternative at the next election. Instead, what the Republican minority has done is embark upon a strategy of abject obstructionism in hopes that they can portray the election winners as "ineffective". The thinking being that this will play to their advantage by further exacerbating the voter's frustration with Congress ... and then capitalizing on traditional anti-incumbent sentiment during mid-term elections.

OAW

You DO know that over 70 percent of the out of office Dems have had jobs withing these organizations? Where did most of Obama's financial adviser's work at one point or another? Wall street is mostly Democrats as well.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You DO know that over 70 percent of the out of office Dems have had jobs withing these organizations? Where did most of Obama's financial adviser's work at one point or another? Wall street is mostly Democrats as well.

As do the Republicans. Wall Street has enormous influence in Washington and has for decades. In any event, what does this have to do with the points raised in my post you quoted?

OAW

[Shaddim]

Good. It's about time someone started throwing up roadblocks when dealing with these stupid f*ckers. Would be nice to see them filibuster everything until election time, but I don't think they have the stones.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As do the Republicans. Wall Street has enormous influence in Washington and has for decades. In any event, what does this have to do with the points raised in my post you quoted?

OAW

You did state:

"Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? You mean Bush's "Ownership Society"?"

I was correcting you. By and large the Dems have been ruining FANNIE and FREDDIE.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You did state:

"Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? You mean Bush's "Ownership Society"?"

I was correcting you. By and large the Dems have been ruining FANNIE and FREDDIE.

Well it would be good form to quote the relevant portion of someone's comments if you are only addressing a particular issue. Having said that ....

The goal was to secure stability and prosperity, and the ownership dream was the way to achieve that. "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," said Bush in a speech back in October 2004. To achieve that vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, such as the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds: a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages with no down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for 24 months. Then there were mortgages with no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though this was, it paled in comparison to the financial innovations that surrounded those mortgages, derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were in fact worth.

As we all know by now, they've brought the global financial system to an improbable brink of collapse.

The End of the Ownership Society - Newsweek.com

So even if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been run by Democrats in recent years ... that in no way eliminates Bush Administration policies with regard to these institutions. Which is WHY I said initially .....

Originally Posted by OAW

When it comes to the mortgage market there is plenty of blame to go around. Between Democrats and Republicans. Between mortgage originators, mortgage servicers, investors, and home buyers.

So I fail to see just where you "corrected" me.

OAW