Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I'm pissed at the democrats and their race to see who can throw him farthest under the bus. It's between him and the people who voted for him. The only appropriate response for a democratic representative to "do you think he should resign" is "when Vitter goes then I might consider it". As for the new republican scum tactic of demanding that democrats give back/away money that Weiner donated to them, the only appropriate response to the republicans is "let's take a look at your donations first".

IMHO, of course.

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

I will go even further to say that I think the democratic response should be, "I (we) support Weiner. He is a Democrat. He is one of us. We all make mistakes. He has been legally elected by the people of New York. That's good enough for me (us). I (we) believe the situation will quickly be resolved in his favor. Now lets get back to solving important problems like balancing the budget without detroying medicare"

That's my 2 cents worth.
Smooches,
Keri

[BullDog]

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

She is a Republican of the type and kind I remember prior to the religious right buying off the GOP.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party. Cheers
Aj

They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

Dread
I so agree with you regarding reality based politics. This lack of reality at least on the part of the republicans is a direct outgrowth of bible based politics. The world was created in six days by god - four thousand years ago. Nothing happened 125,000 or a million years ago, so we can not use information from that long ago for comparison, BECAUSE THE WORLD DID NOT REALLY EXIST THAT LONG AGO!

There is no reason to conserve our natural resources or keep our air and water clean BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL END SOON IN THE APOCALYPSE!

God put humans in charge of the world. Anyone who wants to protect trees or who respects animals as fairly equal to humans is ridiculous and anti-god.

The poor will always be with us is another fave of the repubs, and they aim to have as many poor people as possible to assure that rich people get more money. As reflected particularly in the old testament, rich people are natural rulers, so it is god's plan that rich people get richer so they can be in charge.

Too bad they are ignoring "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Get religion out of politics.

Smooches,
Keri

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj

I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

I don't have any problems with sexting, phone sex, sexy or suggestive pics, etc. as many, many couples engage in this behavior. Consequently, doing so outside of marriage or a relationship could be a form of infidelity. Depends on the couple and how they set-up their relationship boundaries. On the other hand, it can be a very sexy way to interact with the one you love- especially when you have long absences. I am also tired of the right-wing “moral police” making this kind of sexual expression sound creepy and "abnormal." It isn't- but doing it as a high risk behavior that might ruin your marriage or get you fired, is the same as an alcoholic losing everything due to alcohol addiction. Again, I have no idea if Weiner is dealing with addiction. However, just his not thinking about the possibility that engaging with women online in social network sites COULD lead to interacting with someone under 18- IS risky behavior and not what I would expect of a someone with Weiner’s intelligence. Does not compute to me.

I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

If there is no truth to the interaction with a minor, I think this will blow over and Weiner will remain in his seat. 2012 is far enough away that this won't have some of the effects that the whole Mark Foley thing did on the GOP during a general election.

Yes, whatever he and his wife have determined within their marriage to be OK, is their business. But he is a public figure and they ought to know that there are right-wing zealots all over the internet just waiting to catch a liberal or progressive member of Congress in some kind of scandalous behavior. This is where I see a lapse in judgment.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.

Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.

I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.

I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.

I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.



Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.



Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.



Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.



While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne

Yes, sometimes Kucinich can be out there.

Yes, I think Weiner sticks to his guns and like that about him. And YES, to a point I agree with what you say about him just saying "I did it, I apologize"- which I wish he had just done at the start of the whole matter. But, I guess the behavioral scientist in me wants understanding of sexual addiction and its negative effects in our society. It seems that most people just pass it off as psycho-babble when it is a real addiction and can really ruin someone’s life. There is some good neuro-physiological work in human behavior concerning propensity for in risk taking that might shed a lot of light on sex addiction behaviors.

But, I do understand how annoying it can get that so many politicians and celebrities get caught in some scandal, then say "I'm sorry, I have an addiction and I'm going into treatment for it." It has become standard operating procedure for damage control- which contributes to the proliferation of the general population simply hearing "I'm going into treatment" as "the big gun consultants tell me this will work in getting the public to forgive me."

Thus far, the claims of his involvement with any minor seem to be false and quite possibly a product of the very same right-wingers that police social network sites in hopes of catching liberals and progressives at something they can project as immoral in some fashion. I’m sure liberal/progressive folks do the same thing to uncover any conservative/far-right folks, too. The internet has changed the campaigning in may ways- some good, some ugly. I would exercise the utmost caution as a politician online.

[iamkeri1]

Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I do think redistricting is a tool the Republicans willl use to their advantage (as do Dems when they are in control) Liberals will be targets whenever possible. Weiner is a target for being redistricted out of office. As he has plans to run for Mayor, I will not be too bothered by it. Things wax and wane. If Kucinich is districted out of office, it will feel to me like losing a good friend. During the Iraq war he used his one minute speech EVERY DAY to speak out against the war, to talk about the financial cost, and to call out the names of the service members who were killed. His voice is needed in Washington.
Smooches,
Keri

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

[B][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I don't find him generically unrealistic, simply unrealistic on foreign policy (and then only in certain areas, I agree with him, for instance, on Kyoto). He seems, to my mind, to take the opposite position that some prominent conservatives do that also drives me nuts.

Some conservatives treat other international actors as if they are obliged to be insane or stupid or both and thus make of them cartoon villains. Some liberals treat other international actors as if they were nothing more than misunderstood lambs who, if not for either the United States or Western civilization, would be pacifists and only even know of violence because it has been imposed on them by the US and/or the West. Both are wrong and I find Kucinich to be indicative of the latter.

This is not to say he was wrong on Iraq (he obviously wasn't) merely to say that I do not find him credible on foreign policy. Domestically, I rather like Kucinich and I’m sure he was a fine mayor and that he does a good job for the citizens of his district. That doesn't mean I would vote for him for President, I wouldn't. In fact, I would want to make sure he didn't get the nomination just as I'm sure that even now there are people in the GOP who hope that Sarah Palin doesn't get their nomination.

Cheers
Aj