ThinkFast: January 26, 2009
ThinkFast: January 26, 2009
President Obama will “instruct key federal agencies today to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions.” Obama will order that the EPA reconsider granting a waiver for California to regulate tailpipe emissions and that the Transportation Department issue fuel efficiency guidelines for the nation’s auto fleet.
Kathie Olsen – a global warming denying Bush official at the National Science Foundation – has entrenched herself into the agency prior to the arrival of the Obama administration. A congressional investigation said Olsen’s action “raises serious questions concerning whether a high-level Bush White House science appointee is trying to ‘burrow in‘ at the agency.”
The departments of Defense, State, and Health and Human Services “have failed to comply with a 2007 law directing them to appoint civil liberties protection officers and report regularly to Congress on the safeguards they use to make sure their programs don’t undermine the public’s rights and privacy.” The “board that’s supposed to enforce the mandates has been dormant since 2007.”
Lobbyists are bemoaning President Obama’s strict ethics rules, which “are viewed by many on K Street as effectively a ban,” “making it nearly impossible for lobbyists who would take senior positions in government to enter public service.” “I haven’t seen anybody in the administration with any interest in hiring a lobbyist,” one Democratic lobbyist said. “No one I know who is a lobbyist is figuring out a way to get in.”
On Friday, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a package of pro-business tax cuts as part of its stimulus plan, with provisions such as de-leveraging and bonus depreciation that the business lobby has pushed for. “We’re very encouraged,” said Bruce Josten, the vice president of government affairs for the Chamber of Commerce. The $275 billion in tax cuts would also waive tax collection on unemployment benefits.
According to a new USA Today survey of economists, “the U.S. economy will climb out of recession in the second half of the year, but firms will continue to cut jobs through 2009 and growth will likely be more of a crawl than a sprint.” The jobless rate is expected to peak at 8.8 percent next year “as employers remain cautious and implement earlier, announced cuts.”
Obama’s pledge to slash earmarks to 1994 levels, which would be a nearly 75 percent cut from 2006, “is already causing heartburn on Capitol Hill.” Several appropriators told Roll Call that they were “unaware of the pledge” while they have been “quietly negotiating an omnibus appropriations bill for the remainder of fiscal 2009 that will include thousands of earmarks.”
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is introducing a constitutional amendment this week ending gubernatorial Senate appointments, replacing them with special elections. “The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments…make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end,” he said.
New figures from the Pentagon reveal that “[r]oadside bomb attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan hit an all-time high last year,” killing 161 soldiers — more than double the previous year’s total.
And finally: Senator Oprah Winfrey? This morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, scandal-plagued Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) revealed he almost decided to pick TV talk show host Oprah to replace Obama. His consideration of Oprah was tempered, he suggested, by that fact that “she probably wouldn’t take it,” and “If I offered it to her how do you make sure it doesn’t look like a gimmick.”
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bloody Billy Kristol has written his last NYT OP ED!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26kristol.html?_r=1&hp
To his credit, Bill didn’t phone this one in. It’s chock full of strawmen and neocon fantasy. Skim to the end if you can’t stand to read it. Here you will read the following:
“This is William Kristol’s last column.” (italics in orginal)
This is change we can believe in!
January 26th, 2009 at 9:05 amKristol’s last column is a good first step — if his face were to be removed from TV that would be excellent.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:14 amObama will order that the EPA reconsider granting a waiver for California to regulate tailpipe emissions and that the Transportation Department issue fuel efficiency guidelines for the nation’s auto fleet.
____________________________________________________________
And no doubt the Big Three in Detroit will squeal like stuck pigs every step of the way.
If our automakers took the amount of money they spend lobbying, suing (and fighting suits), and general PR work to promote their whining and spend it on designing and producing less polluting and more fuel-efficient cars, we would not only be caught up with the rest of the world, we’d be ahead of them.
Don’t say it’s not fair. Don’t say we can’t do it. We have many of the smartest minds in the world in this country. We have never had a problem finding the know-how necessary to keep ahead of the curve. The Japanese and the Europeans are beating the stuffing out of us when it comes to car technology, and there’s no good reason for that (the biggest “reason” seems to be that our automakers prefer to rake in the profits instead of investing in long-term plans to preserve the industry — but that’s not a good reason).
The car has become a major part of the culture in the United States to a degree unequaled in any other part of the world. When we invest in transporation infrastructure, it’s always roads and parking lots, and rarely public transportation. We virtually invented suburban sprawl. We have more operating cars per capita than any other major country. If this is to be our culture, we must lead the way in mitigating the damage this does to our planet.
We have the capability to do this. We MUST do this.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:17 amPresident Obama will “instruct key federal agencies today to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions.”
In less than a week, Obama has kept a number of campaign promises and now all the Conservatives I know have simply shut up. Perhaps they’ve finally realized that he’s making America better for them too?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:21 amI feel so sorry for those poor lobbyists. Don’t you?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:21 am“According to a new USA Today survey of economists, ‘the U.S. economy will climb out of recession in the second half of the year…’”
I believe they are wrong. The US economy will still be in recession the second half of this year. Mark my words.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:21 ammisshusseinmolly Says: “We have more operating cars per capita than any other major country.”
One of my favorite lines from a song by the Police…
January 26th, 2009 at 9:21 am“packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes,
…..contestants in a suicidal race”
“We’re very encouraged,” said Bruce Josten, the vice president of government affairs for the Chamber of Commerce.
The first, best indication that the cuts represent a bad idea.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:22 amLobbyists are bemoaning President Obama’s strict ethics rules, which “are viewed by many on K Street as effectively a ban,”
Then find new jobs – preferably ones that contribute to society rather than milk it for all it’s worth…
January 26th, 2009 at 9:24 amKathie Olsen – a global warming denying Bush official at the National Science Foundation – has entrenched herself into the agency prior to the arrival of the Obama administration.
Every one of these “burrowed” Bush people needs to be given a desk in an unheated basement (maybe the one the Republicans made the Democrats hold their hearing in) and give them stacks of paper to file. Or, better yet, he could round them all up and send them to Iraq to staff the new embassy we built.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:27 amPresident Obama will “instruct key federal agencies today to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions.”
It seems to me the EPA already recommended the California exemption. It was Bush’s stooge who stopped them from implementing it. So why does he have to go back again for them to make the recommendation they already made?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:29 amLobbyists are bemoaning President Obama’s strict ethics rules, which “are viewed by many on K Street as effectively a ban,”
Gee, they might lose their jobs, lack health insurance, and collect unemployment – then they’ll realize what millions of Americans are facing.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:30 amSorry, my sympathies do not extend to lobbyists.
larkohio; You were just being snarky this morn, weren’t you?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:31 am(:-D)
Lobbyists are bemoaning President Obama’s strict ethics rules, which “are viewed by many on K Street as effectively a ban,” “making it nearly impossible for lobbyists who would take senior positions in government to enter public service.”
Too bad so sad for them. But, hey, they still have jobs. They can still lobby Congress. I’m not exactly sure why these people would want to work in a public service job since it doesn’t pay nearly as well as lobbying does. If they really wanted a career in public service that is where they would have gone in the first place, rather than becoming a lobbyist.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:33 amOn Friday, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a package of pro-business tax cuts as part of its stimulus plan, with provisions such as de-leveraging and bonus depreciation that the business lobby has pushed for.
OK, I’m going to be royally pissed if Obama includes things like this in the stimulus bill to please the Republiscums. We have a MANDATE, we don’t need to pander to them any longer damn it.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:34 amBobwurst,
I agree completely…it made my morning to read that ‘Billy the Bloody’ has lost his NYT editorial slot.
‘This is William Kristol’s last column’
Consider that an epithet, Bill, and a fitting one, at that.
Not only is it your last column, it’s the Neocon’s last hurrah.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:35 amObama’s pledge to slash earmarks to 1994 levels, which would be a nearly 75 percent cut from 2006, “is already causing heartburn on Capitol Hill.” Several appropriators told Roll Call that they were “unaware of the pledge” while they have been “quietly negotiating an omnibus appropriations bill for the remainder of fiscal 2009 that will include thousands of earmarks.”
I think that earmarks has gotten a bad rap because of its misuse. There are many worthwhile earmarks where cities, counties and states need money for a good project (cleaning up waterways, building new waste treatment plants) but don’t have the cash on hand to build it. Or, look at the fruit fly research which has been responsible for many medical breakthroughs.
What I think Obama should do would be to introduce two earmark bills (name them something else) a year where congresspeople can ask for funds to help their districts. There needs to be full oversight on the earmarks including who is asking and who will benefit.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:39 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says: OK, I’m going to be royally pissed if Obama includes things like this in the stimulus bill to please the Republiscums. We have a MANDATE, we don’t need to pander to them any longer damn it.
Remember that he told them “I won”.
I think his idea of including them is that he’s going to let them talk, take any good ideas they have (which will be few, or they wouldn’t currently be the minority party), and then use his communication skills to tell them why they won’t be getting their way and should join him.
He’s been less tolerant of their bullshit than I thought he would be. He’s going to be open-minded, but he’s not going to let them stop progress.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:40 amSen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is introducing a constitutional amendment this week ending gubernatorial Senate appointments, replacing them with special elections.
I understand his reasoning behind this but that is putting a pretty large financial burden on states who will be forced to hold special elections at their expense. Perhaps he could sweeten the pot by having the federal government help pay for the special election, especially if the post is vacant because the person has moved on to a position in a new administration.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:40 amThis is William Kristol’s last column’
Now if they would just drop Modo, and Bobo, they might begin to restore some lost credibility to their editorial page.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:41 amWilliam Kristol should be missed as he has been one, if not the most, reliable and predictive voices about what not to do. It would be very efficient for making good choices by attending to Kristol’s view and doing the opposite.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:43 amfrom antiwar.com (Justin Raimondo)
…The first is a need for Obama to prove his “toughness” – that test Joe Biden predicted, shortly after the election, is sure to come, and there’s no doubt about what the new president has to prove, and to whom. In spite of their straitened circumstances, the political and financial elites that run this country still like to think of themselves as the keepers of world order, and Washington the center of an empire on which the sun will never set. Failure to act “tough” would bring down a firestorm of criticism on his head and lose him the support of key constituencies, e.g., the mainstream media and the hawks in his own party.
The second is a perceived need to increase government spending on anything and everything. When they run out of pork-barrel projects to fund – or when the corruption gets too obvious, whichever comes first – they’ll turn to military spending. Obama has already pledged to increase the military budget, and you can bet that, with the costs of the coming Afghan-Pakistani-Central Asian conflagration, “defense” appropriations are bound to go through the roof. Military Keynesianism will unite Democrats and Republicans, liberals and neoconservatives, in a happy orgy of spending and borrowing that will, ultimately, lead to bankruptcy.
What our ruling elites are counting on is that the foreigners who hold our debt will never call it in and demand payment – they’ll be content with 3 percent interest without ever getting back a bit of their principal. This seems an unwarranted assumption, unless you’re the most militarily powerful nation on earth, in which case special consideration will be given. Yet economic laws cannot be violated indefinitely and with impunity: the drain of resources occasioned by our Iraqi adventure did much to suck the lifeblood from our already overtaxed economy. Just think what a decades-long conflict in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and god-knows-where-else will do to our finances.
Yet according to the Keynesian militarists, any kind of government spending is good, so war is a boost for the economy. Why, it’s just another sort of jobs program. This, of course, is nonsense: war destroys resources, both material and human, and produces nothing but horror and evil. The war-is-good-for-business fallacy is just a morally deranged variant of the broken-window fallacy so skillfully demolished by Henry Hazlitt. However, with free-market economics of the sort espoused by Hazlitt so unfashionable these days, it’s highly unlikely that this particular delusion will be easily dispelled.
The third major factor tending toward militarism is that wartime atmospherics fit Obama’s domestic program to a tee. Already we are hearing the rhetoric of war applied to the economic front, in the hopes that the same sense of obligatory “unity” will be imposed on potential critics and soften, if not silence, naysayers. As the “war on recession” enlists an army of cheerleaders and would-be block captains, the scapegoat of a foreign enemy is a welcome diversion from deteriorating conditions on the home front.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:44 amIf Obama really wants the country to heal, after eight years of Bush, he should rescind all the bullshit unfunded mandates of the last administration. That would do a lot to help the states regain their economic footing.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:44 amBobwurst Says:
Bloody Billy Kristol has written his last NYT OP ED!!!!
Woo Hoo. The NYT finally decided that they were through with being embarrassed by Kristol. Good work NYT.
Now, queue the neocons screaming about how this proves that the NYT is a “liberal” newspaper. Their tiny little heads won’t be able to grasp the concept that the NYT doesn’t want editorialists who continually lie in their columns.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:45 amNext up for Bill Kristol, a gig as a talking head on Fixed News.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:52 amSo? Raimondo also predicted that russia would invade the US in 2008……
I believe that Obama has already proven his “toughness” were you asleep?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:52 amI do so agree with Sam. We truly are wasting are resources as we “roll up our sleeves” into Afghanistan. Didn’t we learn anything from Bush?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 amThe second is a perceived need to increase government spending on anything and everything. When they run out of pork-barrel projects to fund – or when the corruption gets too obvious, whichever comes first – they’ll turn to military spending. Obama has already pledged to increase the military budget, and you can bet that, with the costs of the coming Afghan-Pakistani-Central Asian conflagration, “defense” appropriations are bound to go through the roof.
Justin has been a little flighty in the past, and this seems more of the same. These “shovel ready” goals are more than just finding new projects to fund – it is also funding existing construction, which has been stopped, or slowed because of in inadequate tax revenues. Here in Cali, the gov. is warning that we’ll have to stop many unfinished highway projects, because the recession has led to a great decrease in state tax revenue. Giving the states cash to finish these projects will consume a large portion of the stimulus money, destined for infrastructure, negating the need to pump up military spending.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 amAfghanistan is just another name for Iraq. The sooner Obama realizes this, the better we will be.
Right now I am enjoying the breath of fresh-air and freedom which Obama has already accomplished in 3 short days. The Bush paranoia is evaporating quickly and is being replaced with trust and security.
We finally got it right with Obama.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:55 amYou do? You think Obama is going to funnel all of our resources into Afganistan and ignore our problems at home?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:57 amThe state of our economy is in right now, any money going into Afghaninstan is a waste, in my opinion. Am I entitled to this opinion?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:59 amKay Says: I do so agree with Sam. We truly are wasting are resources as we “roll up our sleeves” into Afghanistan. Didn’t we learn anything from Bush?
Just think what will happen to all the right-wingers if Obama we’re to get Osama bin Laden at the beginning of his term.
Unfortunately, it’s going to require effort in Afghanistan to do this. I’ll tolerate it for a while. But not forever, or any new wars.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:03 ambarfly Says: These “shovel ready” goals are more than just finding new projects to fund – it is also funding existing construction, which has been stopped, or slowed because of in inadequate tax revenues.
By closing offhsore accounts and tax loopholes, ALL corporations, rather than just 23%, would have to pay their fair share in taxes, rather than none at all, and this would go a very long way in helping tax revenues…
January 26th, 2009 at 10:05 amWell, since you posted it in a public forum I assumed it was up for disscussion and that you would allow me to post my opinion without questioning my right to do so.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:06 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
January 26th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I think that earmarks has gotten a bad rap because of its misuse. There are many worthwhile earmarks where cities, counties and states need money for a good project (cleaning up waterways, building new waste treatment plants) but don’t have the cash on hand to build it. Or, look at the fruit fly research which has been responsible for many medical breakthroughs.
What I think Obama should do would be to introduce two earmark bills (name them something else) a year where congresspeople can ask for funds to help their districts. There needs to be full oversight on the earmarks including who is asking and who will benefit.
__________________________________________________________
I agree with you that earmarks have gotten a bad reputation, and your proposed solution has merit.
I’d like to remove earmarks from Congress altogether. The system as we have it now favors special interests with money over special interests without, and it favors districts represented by someone with a gazillion years of seniority over a newbie (which is why corrupt old farts get re-elected over and over again).
An earmark is essentially a grant. Can we get Congress out of the business of grant-bestowing? Instead of handing out money to individuals, corporations, non-profit organizations, etc., let Congress ensure federal agencies are funded sufficiently and then let the agencies bestow the grants. For example, if a community wants a “bridge to nowhere”, let them go to the Department of Transportation for a grant instead of to their congressman for an earmark.
Wouldn’t this just pass the same problems to another set of hands? Not really. Federal agencies aren’t run by people who are elected. These people don’t have campaign war chests. These people don’t have to shmooze for money to enable them to keep their jobs, which gives them a bit more natural immunity to lobbyists (of course, a lobbyist could still give fistfuls of cash directly, but that would be illegal — whereas contributions to a campaign fund can generally pass under the radar).
Unfortunately, any change in our current system would have to be approved by Congress. It’s doubtful they are going to sabotage their own gravy train, any more than they would willingly endorse term limits for themselves or do away the the Electoral College.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:07 amOh. C’mon. You really think OBL is our enemy? He’s been a double agent for years. Bush needed him for his bogus “war on terror”. I guess we still need him, because this bulls_it war on terror is still going on.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:08 amBilbo Hussein Baggins at 9:52 am
“Next up for Bill Kristol, a gig as a talking head on Fixed News.”
How many discredited neocons can Murdoch keep on the payroll?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:11 amOh, right, as many as he wants.
Good morning all….The word for the day could be patience…..I would be most pleased if President Obama could kick out all reich winger’s and blue dog’s, since that’s going to take awhile I think stopping all war’s may take a few day’s longer…
Putting everyone back to work, cutting our funding of war’s, taking care of our enviroment and wildlife along with making sure all the evil doer’s are held to account are huge request’s from me to him….So I must give him a little time and hope he is able to accomplish a few of the staggering issue’s on my mind….Happy postings…Don’t forget to send a thank you note when something good is done..Blessings
January 26th, 2009 at 10:14 amI don’t think this is true although I can’t disprove it. I’ve also never heard Barrack use the term “war on terror” although I may have missed it. It is not an obvious theme of this administration as it was for bush.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:15 amKay Says: Oh. C’mon. You really think OBL is our enemy?
Yes. History shows that we’re Frankenstein and he’s the monster we created (and by we I mean Ronald Reagan).
George Bush bankrupted three companies because he couldn’t find oil in Texas. Nearly every former WH staffer has written a tell-all book. There’s no conspiracy. Bush wasn’t competent enough, and someone would have blabbed by now. Think about it.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:18 amFred Says: I don’t think this is true although I can’t disprove it.
The hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabians. If this were a plan to attack us so we could then Iraq, then wouldn’t someone clever enough to pull off such a conspiracy also be clever enough to use Iraqi attackers instead of audi Arabian ones?
The logic just doesn’t add up.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:21 amThe so called war on terror is nothing more than a pretext for empire. The action in Afghanistan was justifiable initially in that it rooted out the terrorist bases and training camps, and dislodged a repressive, ideological regime, that of the Taliban.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:24 amStill, there would have been no action, other than strike forces, if it wasn’t for a pre-existing potential for a trans-Afghani pipeline, which had included negotiations, with the Taliban..(Unocal)
The invasion of Iraq was purely and simply for the oil resources.
America is standing in the same pair of sandals the Roman empire stood in, with massive crippling debt funding armies in foreign lands, while it’s people at home starve and watch their aqueducts dry up.
AbleCluster flagged for spamming
January 26th, 2009 at 10:26 amHow is this going to get blamed on the Republicans and Bush? TP better get to spinning! This could end up being uhhhhbama’s Vietnam.
If they hadn’t wasted so many resources In Iraq…
January 26th, 2009 at 10:31 amNevar Says:
I agree that the war in Afganistan was about oil. powell was in Afganistan in july before 9/11 and when talks about the pipeline broke down powell told them we would carpet them with money or with bombs…their choice. One month later…..
I think war in Iraq was the ultimate goal or the bushies, this was used as a catalyst. It could have been handled as a police matter otherwise and osama would most likely be in jail right now.
I think Obama will end the Iraq conflict asap and deal with Afganistan/Pakistan in a truly unilateral fashion. Not just an American war.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:33 amMust really suck to be Dynamo.
Politically irrelevant, reduced to spamming liberal websites. What ever happened to that Permament Republican Majority you guys were crowing about, a few years ago?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:34 amYou’re funny but a liar, bush did no such thing for 8 years and now Obama has been in office for 4 days and you expect it from him…….funny, sad but funny.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:36 amDirty Max Baucus (D-Montana) chairs the Senate Finance Committee. He’s a Chamber of Commerce stooge. Corporafornication is alive and well and has a blue tint.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:38 amYeah dyno, how about that and where is our new era of prosperity that the cons promised in exchange for tax cuts for the rich and deregulation?
Time for you to answer questions right now, not be criticizing anyone else’s efforts.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:39 amThe same place as bush used to shove no child left behind. You either do it or the funds get cut……besides, I don’t think Obama will have the same problems with it that bush the oil guy had with it.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:42 amwhere in the Constitution does the President or congress have the power to judge fuel standards
Right after the part about prohibition. Look it up.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:43 amclusterphuck-FLAGGED for spamming
Dynie- don’t forget, as for Iraq & Afghanistan, chimpy launched those wars
January 26th, 2009 at 10:44 amYeah, that must be why k street is whining.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:45 amJ.Davis says:
California should tell the Whitehouse and congress to go to hell and move forward with their plans.
Uhh… Jefferson? Obama is on California’s side here… Bush forced the EPA to oppose California’s stricter air quality standards… Bush pushed this, Obama is fixing it…
January 26th, 2009 at 10:48 amJ.Davis Says: “California should tell the Whitehouse and congress to go to hell and move forward with their plans.”
Obama is basically telling California, and other states, exactly that… go ahead with your own emission standards.
It was Dufous Bush who told California it could not set it’s own standards.
Try to at least keep up if you wish to discourse here. We don’t expect much from you in the way of facts, we’ll help you out with that part.
Oh, is it all right if I call you Jeff?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:50 amWe’re on the same page belac, good coffee this morning huh?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:51 am;)
mmm, delicious…
January 26th, 2009 at 10:52 amWow, sounds like Obama is all over it dude! I am impressed
January 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am–
Maybe if you could come up with a creative comment, I might be more inclined to spend money at the dumb ass nobody cares center
Either we scared Jeffy away, or he’s mixing another mint julep and having his morning constitutional.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:03 amDynamo Says:
White House blog and site get off to a bad start
______________
Good Dog, you pathetic whiner… the article you link to was written on the 21th… the day AFTER the Inauguration. Are you just adding another pointless bit of pouty nonsense to the list of “Terrible Failures of the Incoming President” that FauxSnooze has been working on?
Like, fer instance, how much more unsafe we all are ONE day later?
Saaaaaaayyy… will any of the Soon-To-Be Released Gitmo Terrorists be moved into your neighborhood soon? Lounging around on the front steps all day, pitching pennies, whistling at young women walking by… all whilst pulling down nice, big, fat welfare checks drawn off of your tax dollars?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:05 ambelac Says:
Uhh… Jefferson? Obama is on California’s side here… Bush forced the EPA to oppose California’s stricter air quality standards… Bush pushed this, Obama is fixing it…
_____________
(Sound of a lone banjo in the distance, playing “Dixie”)
W/ minds like Jeff’s on their side, it’s not surprising the Confederacy LOST the war, huh?
(Sound of one string breaking…)
January 26th, 2009 at 11:09 amHere jeffy, this should bring you up to speed if you can read. Of course if your just listening to radio it won’t help much.
Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standard
January 26th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The Republic of Stupidity
oh yea stirrer of shit…….bon jour mon ami..
January 26th, 2009 at 11:15 amami means friend, right?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:15 amOh and Jefferson?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amTo answer your question…
Where in the Constitution does Congress derive the power to regulate fuel standards nationwide?
Here…
Dammit, SamWeller! Here I was, enjoying coffee and my daily adrenaline boost from TP, and you made me THINK. [I LIKE to think. . . just not this early!] So now, instead of indulging myself by firing off bon mots about repugs and neocons, I have to settle down and give serious consideration to the dangers that still loom ahead regardless of our electing President Obama. It’s definitely Monday.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:25 amFred Says:
The Republic of Stupidity
oh yea stirrer of shit…….bon jour mon ami..
_______________
Stirrer of merde? Moi? :-)?
Bong jour, ya’ll… as they say in the South of France…
(Yes… “ami” means friend…)
January 26th, 2009 at 11:37 amor…
January 26th, 2009 at 11:46 amAmerican Mustache Institute, a facial hair advocacy organization
J.Davis Says: etc…
Are you a fan of the Turner Diaries?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:57 amYou must be from the south of france.
What part of this whole issue is still confusing to you jeff? Obama is on board. States right issues aside, it seems irrelivant at this point, I don’t think Callie is going to succeed over it.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:58 amThe commerce clause and the Supreme Court disagree with you on this one J.Davis.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:59 amPretty emphatically and consistently, too.
Hey Jefferson…
Napoleon, Charlemange, & Cromwell were looking for you yesterday. They need a fourth for bridge.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pmsucceed(spelling) from the union that is.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pmsecede, mon ami…
January 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pmgracias, I knew it didn’t look right and my spell checker wouldn’t give me the right spelling….
January 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pmA context checker would come in handy at times…
January 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pmWe did, we got rid of the bush admin. States rights is usually a republican issue…..
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pmNot that our current troll would even notice…;)
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pmName 3 times it has sided with the States in the last 100 years
Seriously?
It’s time you learned to o your own research…
the easiest and quickest answer but far from the completest…
From Wikipedia:
January 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Do states have the right to prohibit Republicans from marrying?
January 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pmYou disagreements with the current Government are insufficient grounds for leaving the Union… it’s as simple as that.
Leaving aside the legality of your proposed secession…
I believe that if you truly put the question to the people of TN and explained what you receive in Federal Dollars, public works, national defense, etc.
Succession would lose.
Not that’s legal.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pmJ.Davis Says: “So now the ones that disagree with you are to be tyrannized as y’all were by the tyrant bush? Do you now become the thing 2 months ago y’all despised?”
Here it comes folks, in about 3 more posts Jeffy will be saying he just wanted to come here and discuss states rights, but since we all hate him he is going to go away. Another repeat performance of martyrdom.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pmYou do nothing but ask baiting questions and create absurd hypotheticals, Jeffy… no solutions, no contributions, no opinions.
Why are you spinning so hard Jeff? Obama is letting California do what they wanted before Bush stopped them. Just drop all your pretense and go on your “I hate Lincoln” rant. You’re just wasting time.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:29 pmSo now the ones that disagree with you are to be tyrannized as y’all were by the tyrant bush? Do you now become the thing 2 months ago y’all despised?
Get out the banjo, and jug, and lets do this southern pity-party like it been done for a century!
But first, pen the hogs – we don’t want no accidents like last time…
January 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pmFunny you didn’t come here whining and complaining when Bush was grabbing power he wasn’t even entitled to. You’re just a Republican troll no different than the rest.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pmI HATE the repugnat party but if I vote I have no choice but to go that way unless I vote for my own distruction by voting democrap.That is a horrible system of govt.
Now, he’s advocating the same line as the white power skinheads. Why am I not surprised?
January 26th, 2009 at 12:50 pmJ.Davis Says: “50 different choices of the type of society that people can chose from to live in.”
LOL
OK, just so you know that when you come to my state you’ll have to get out and push your car, as it won’t pass the emissions standards, and that you have to drink your beer warm.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pmI’m sure that if I came to your state I would have to shred the legs of my pants, chew a stem of grass, and go barefoot.
Mr. Davis-
We disagree about the federal government. I am not close-minded, I have considered your opinion and found it lacking. When this issue was contested 150 years ago, the secessionists lost.
I’m sorry that it took a bloody, violent war to confirm the opinion of the Union-backers but confirm it it did. And let’s not forget that it was the South who chose armed conflict…
Leaving all that aside,
Put it to a vote in TN and I can almost guarantee you’ll lose.
But your perceived victim status doesn’t equate to tyranny… sorry.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pmI believe you missed my point. It was that you’re a lying sack of cr@p troll not worth wasting time on.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm(AND DON”T CALL ME A REPUGNACAN! I HATE THE REPUGNAT PARTY WITH A PASSION!)
I HATE the repugnat party but if I vote I have no choice but to go that way unless I vote for my own distruction by voting democrap.
Self-hate, and self-delusion, in one badly-wrapped package.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pmIf you live in New York,would you not like to form govt. by consent without interference from Mississippi the repugnat party or anyone else but your own fellow New Yorkers?
We are a democracy, a commonweal, of equal citizens. We share a common legacy, and one section of the country can’t opt to damage the environment (for example), without damaging the whole country, so, no. We should all have an equal say in how the country’s resources are utilized – through our elected representatives.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pmI hate the skinheads more than I do the repugnat party!
… and yet, when you argue for the people of our nation to separate into homogeneous groups because living with other people’s opinions is ‘tyranny’ you are advocating the same logic as a white-power skinhead.
Which was barfly’s point.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:05 pmJ.Davis…
January 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pmCan you express to us what you consider yourself to be, or what you like?
J.Davis Says: “I am really,to tell the truth,glad y’all think that way of us,for if you stop thinking that way,then you will consider us the same as you.”
And why wouldn’t you want us to consider yourselves as we are?
I’m only poking fun at your contrived Southern rube-ishness. (People who say “y’all” do not type it that way…)
It takes a sense of humor, and a willingness to laugh and poke fun, and accept good natured ribbing if people are going to learn to co-exist. Your vision of 50 different autonomous states is as ridiculous as a vision of individual nations being able to exist upon the planet in harmony without accepting different cultures.
We don’t hate you, J.Davis.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pmJ.Davis-
The problem with your argument is, where does it end?
What happens when Knoxville gets tired of being dictated to by those ‘tyrants’ in Nashville and decides to secede?
January 26th, 2009 at 1:19 pmAnd then Memphis decides that it would like to make ‘The Blues’ the official state language over English. Suddenly, you’re left with a bunch of squabbling city-states and we get to re-enact not the Civil War, but the Peloponnesian War.
We’ve moved past this- join us.
We consider you the same, only dumber.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pmThank you, J. Davis, it helps all of us to speak clear opinions and statements. Therefore we can attempt understanding. However, it sounds as though you place little or no value on understanding others views or cultures.
“We live in a giant country that is very different as to climate,history,commerce,religion,age(of the States)habits,and general way of life.To try to force all these difference into an either/or national pressure cooker and expect a good outcome is childish.”
I’m not sure what your sources of information are, but this is not a vast country with room for anyone and everyone to do their own thing.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pmWhat does the “age” of the states have top do with anything?
But you are and you persist. We have already told you that we disagree with you. We get what you are saying and it’s 19th century thinking.
You said you are a state’s rights conservative….take it to your conservative buddies, they are looking for a cause right now.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmIn our system,the States created the federal govt.
We tried it that way already- it lasted less than 10 years. The Constitution has lasted over 200… it’s pretty good. Perhaps not perfect, but pretty good.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:41 pmSee what history can teach us?
J.Davis, I hear that South Carolina is thinking of taking Tennesee and then there will only be 49 states. That the kind of thing you want?
January 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pmGuaranteeing your rights guarantees mine in a States Rights system.
It also would have ‘guaranteed’ your ‘right’ to own slaves…
January 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pmWhich we all agree would have been a mistake.
sometimes the individual needs to be protected from the many, sometimes the many need to be protected from the wacky individual.
Checks and balances… The Federal Government has a role and to fulfill it, it sometimes needs to overrule the States… just as sometimes the States need to over-rule the Federal Government.
We just lived through 8 years of your conservative culture. It took us backwards 50 years or more. You are just pushing for us to go back 150 years…..no thanks.
ps. conservative’s have lost, big time. Your way of thinking is passe. You have to learn to live with it as we have the last 8 years except your time will be much longer.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pmJ.Davis Says: “Guaranteeing your rights guarantees mine in a States Rights system.”
Pretzel logic.
Sorry dude, it’s not going to work.
Homogenization is the ultimate solution to the survival of the human species on the planet Earth.
Think globally, and in the long haul.
Your civil war with yourself and against your fellow countrymen is archaic and counterproductive.
Got to get on with the day… I think I hear the revenooers coming up the mountain….
January 26th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI would never be in favor of holding people against their will.
Which brings us to our Memphis secession problem…
January 26th, 2009 at 1:55 pmTennessee is an arbitrary designation.
It was created for expediencies sake.
It did not always exist.
Once you start down the road of separation at the slightest slight, perceived or otherwise… then you end up with the States falling apart… which is what happened with the Articles of Confederation- a too weak Federal Government was not sustainable.
I’m done… you seem to be the close-minded one, Jefferson. You refuse to see past the nose on your Grandfather’s face… let alone your own.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
I’d like to remove earmarks from Congress altogether. The system as we have it now favors special interests with money over special interests without, and it favors districts represented by someone with a gazillion years of seniority over a newbie (which is why corrupt old farts get re-elected over and over again).
Wouldn’t this just pass the same problems to another set of hands? Not really. Federal agencies aren’t run by people who are elected. These people don’t have campaign war chests. These people don’t have to shmooze for money to enable them to keep their jobs, which gives them a bit more natural immunity to lobbyists (of course, a lobbyist could still give fistfuls of cash directly, but that would be illegal — whereas contributions to a campaign fund can generally pass under the radar).
Unfortunately, any change in our current system would have to be approved by Congress. It’s doubtful they are going to sabotage their own gravy train, any more than they would willingly endorse term limits for themselves or do away the the Electoral College.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Transferring such decisions to bureaucrats, while lessening the influence of lobbyists, would give too much power to people who aren’t accountable to the public. At least now we know who to blame for the foolishness upon which our money is wasted. We need someone with Obama’s popularity among all Americans to push for term limits so we have a better chance of getting representatives who will consider what is best for the nation rather than their own districts.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pmbelac,expaine to me how this is done now, nullification is out,secession is out,interposition is out,what stick do the States carry that the feds fear?
See comment #87… seriously.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pmGuaranteeing your rights guarantees mine in a States Rights system.
No, it doesn’t. If my state allows people to carry guns into a national park, and yours doesn’t – and a national park sits astride both our states, the citizens of my state can carry weapons onto your side of the line, because our state allow weapons to be carried throughout the park. The citizens of your state aren’t afforded the same protections of law that mine are, setting up a legal conflict that cannot be resolved by the two states alone, if both are adamant in their convictions. In this situation, only an overarching authority can decide what is equitable for both.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pmStupid, stupid, stupid. Just plain stupid.
transferring such decisions to bureaucrats…..you mean the people who were elected by the people for the people, etc. those beurocrat’s?
How pray tell are lobbyists “accountable to the public”?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pmdang jeff, can’t you at least put a line between your quotes and your comments……we aint mind readers.
so you are basically saying that the US as it is should be destroyed and let the states fight it out. Great plan.
You’re saying that this country of laws that has lasted 200 years is a worthless piece of shit just because of your phony, irrational states rights issue?
That about it? So you want to fight the great rebellion again? That about cover it?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pmTry not to drink up all yer profits.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pmurrrrrpp
January 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pmIs its a national park the States can come agreement on their common property.
As I stated, they are both adamant in their beliefs. Your solution? And what of the fact that it’s a national park, meaning not owned by the states? You really offer no constuctive solution to the situation, other than let’em bump heads until one side gives in, right? And isn’t that the same bully mentality you criticize the federal government for?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pmIts typed the way its said. “you-all”, now speed it up, “y’all”! nuthin to it!
Are you trying to impose your culture upon us?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pm;)
_______
Fred Says:
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just plain stupid.
transferring such decisions to bureaucrats…..you mean the people who were elected by the people for the people, etc. those beurocrat’s?
How pray tell are lobbyists “accountable to the public”?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Don’t be so hard on yourself, fred. You’re not stupid, you just need to brush up on your vocabulary and reading skills a little.
I meant these bureaucrats:
Main Entry:
Function:
noun
1 a: a body of non-elective government officials
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucracy
And I never said lobbyists are accountable to anyone. If you’ll notice, the phrase referring to lobbyists is set apart by commas because it refers back to another subject mentioned in the original post. Commas are a good thing, fred. ;)
January 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pmRed Pill Says:
The first, best indication that the cuts represent a bad idea. Perhaps not. Remember, the Chamber of Commerce has been an arm of the GOP for over a decade. Josten could’ve taken the opportunity to say “It’s not enough” or to parrot Boehner’s talking points.
-AF
January 26th, 2009 at 4:33 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
Let me try that again…
Red Pill Says:
Perhaps not. Remember, the Chamber of Commerce has been an arm of the GOP for over a decade. Josten could’ve taken the opportunity to say “It’s not enough” or to parrot Boehner’s talking points.
-AF
January 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud