Yet another crack appears in the facade of the GOP. As I've said, I just don't see the Republican Party surviving intact for very much longer. For folks like Arlen Specter, Olivia Snowe and Susan Collins the truth is too large to ignore: There is no place in the GOP for moderates. I don't know what death wish has driven the party to strive toward fringedom, but - as Randi Rhodes once put it - every Republican sounds like Foghorn Leghorn. When not even 25% of the people will admit to being a Republican, it's time to proclaim the truth that is self-evident: The GOP is a white, Southern party with extremist views regarding social issues. As such, it cannot be considered an opposition party, so much as an impediment to progress.
So, what is a moderate supposed to do? When you are threatened with a primary challenge by the powers that be, just for supporting a spending bill designed to keep the country from falling into a Depression? When any hint of bi-partisanship is shown, you are labeled a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only)? If you're not willing to fall into lockstep with party leadership, and you truly feel you can continue to serve the public - you go where you see the rest of the country is going. Pragmatic? Sure. Cynical? Maybe. Smart? You betcha!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
167 comments:
Most western states not on the coast are dominated by republicans. Texas and the several midwest states directly north of it are all dominated by republicans. It is not a "south" state party.
The fact that moderately fascist politicians are both welcome and willing to join the "pragmatic" democrats right now is more ominous than heartening. The two-party U.S. system is not a democratic system at all. We have one party with two sides. Presently, we are enjoying a corrective push back away from the worst of the right side. The range of the return push, however, is limited. As "moderate republicans" jump onto the wagon now, their weight will help ensure an even more limited correction.
I had no idea the dearly departed lead guitarist of Ozzy Osbourne's band ever made such a statement about the GOP. Foghorn Leghorn? That's hilarious.
;)
Lefty, please forgive my ignorance but tell me. Is a limited correction worse than no correction at all? Is it not a start?
Or do I just have absolutely no idea what "limited correction" means?
I'm guessing the latter. But please let me know.
Oh, and JM, "Yet another crack appears in the facade of the GOP"?
I'll have you know, my plumber is a Libertarian.
If there's only one party with two sides, why is the discussion so polarized? I think the party divide is much narrower at the top than at the bottom, speaking in terms of class and wealth. But there is a divide between the parties. The interesting thing to me is that the bottom of each party is becoming more extreme, even as the GOP's numbers have dropped, while vocal numbers of each party's bottom are starting to notice the divide between the top and bottom of their respective parties is greater than the actual divide between the parties.
If there's only one party with two sides, why is the discussion so polarized? I think the party divide is much narrower at the top than at the bottom, speaking in terms of class and wealth. But there is a divide between the parties. The interesting thing to me is that the bottom of each party is becoming more extreme, even as the GOP's numbers have dropped, while vocal numbers of each party's bottom are starting to notice the divide between the top and bottom of their respective parties is greater than the actual divide between the parties.
Ack!
Pardon my hijacking the thread, but did anyone else get an email from a Chron reporter wanting to interview you for a story about news story commentators?
dsg - you can say that again!
Nope! I've gotten ones asking if they could include a comment in their 'reader's views' (or whatever it's called) in the Chron. You be sure to tell 'em what's what, dsg! (Was it Andrew Ross?)
One of my comments was highlighted in the "readers' views" box from between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. a few weeks ago (not really that late/early, but you get the idea). I thought, "Great, no one will ever see this!"
wv: pritic
BTW, I haven't decided to talk to the reporter. My past dealings with the press have left me wary.
Not Andrew Ross, it's a tech reporter I never heard of, I guess the idea is that commenting on news stories is new and different.
Odd.
I got an email from a Chron reporter asking me to stop commenting on news stories.
Hmmm
1. People at the bottom have one thing in common. The people at the top control how much money they get. A homophobic blue collar worker and a gay blue collar worker will both vote with their wallets when they have to, no matter what the candidates have to say about gay marriage.
2. If you welcome a guy like Specter into your circle of power, you automatically make your government more conservative. He will demand payback for his cooperation. One policy that concerns me, for example, is his almost unqualified support for Israel.
I think the overall effect on the direction of the Democratic Party will be fairly minimal. Specter's relative conservatism will be balanced out by his need to play ball with the Dems. But it's basically a win-win situation for both Specter and the Dems--Specter will likely keep his seat, and the Dems get a fairly reliable vote when it comes to dealing with cloture.
Left wing commentators have noted Clinton's shift on Israel since becoming Secretary of State. Whether that reflects Obama's governing influence or not is open to question. The approach, however, has been promising. I would hate to see ANY back-tracking. How the U.S. deals with Israel determines to a large degree how it deals with Iran and Afghanistan. Or so I think.
The GOP isn't dead. This is the part where the villian appears to be dead, but will spring back to life and scare the shit out of us.
WV-antraddy Who's your antraddy?
Wonderful. I just got a letter from my son's high school reminding all parents that a couple hundred kids from the school went to Mexico over Spring break (just over a week ago) to do volunteer work. Hope they didn't bump into any flu-ridden Smithfield hogs escaped from Veracruz.
Check this out, from 2 1/2 yrs. ago.
http://tinyurl.com/vr8vn
I didn't know Specter was the only Republican Jew in the Senate. I doubt he'll have much sway over Obama. He may force some serious amendments to the card check bill, however.
The Republican party will bounce back viciously. Count on it. Greed and self-interest we have with us always.
I honestly have to say that I've never understood the fixation on Israel. Maybe it's because I'm not Jewish and I don't belong to any groups that have anti-Jewish feelings, but it seems clear to me that (a) the U.S. must be allied to Israel because it is a fairly democratic nation in a key region, and (b) Israel must ultimately come to a settlement with the Palestinians that creates a state for them. The rest is details, which shouldn't negate the bigger-picture issues.
Well, Israel has nuclear weapons, I believe. If the U.S. doesn't protect Israel, it will protect itself. I'd say that's a big deal. Mistreatment of the Palestinians is pretty significant, too.
I have some Jewish friends who really clamp down when it comes to Israel. The country is somehow beyond criticism to them. Then, naturally, I have other Jewish friends who are quite critical of the Israeli government.
I guess it makes sense that Specter and Lieberman would be the standout pro-Israeli moderates.
India has nukes, too. As does Pakistan.
Okay, I talked with the reporter, and now I feel self-conscious. Apparently I am one of the most prolific commenters.
I'm confused... isn't Specter switching to the Socialist Party?
Wow. Public recognition for sfgate blogging! Some people would kill for that honor.
dsg - well, I didn't want to say anything... You needn't feel self conscious, there is quality in your quantity.
I don't want to give the wrong impression - I hate the idea of the death of the Republican Party, or more accurately, the hostile takeover of the party by fringe elements. If you'll notice, on the right hand, lower side of the blog home page, I want the true Republicans to reclaim their party. Let the extremists create their own party. If the moderates all come to the Democratic Party, the fringies will use that to appeal to the 'lunatic element' that just might, maybe, possibly be willing to take up arms against the government.
I dream of the return of reasonable, responsible debate in government - where compromise is possible because our public servants really do have the best interests of the nation at heart, instead of what's good for their party.
Xoot, can I tell them I'm you?
If you do, then I'll tell them that I'm 10 other bloggers (or at least one other with 10 names).
dsg and xoot, could you both tell them you're me? That way next time I put my foot in my keyboard, everyone will think it's satire.
Thanks!
He wants a photo now. This is definitely out of control.
wv: datcopya
I smell a stalker....
Go for it, claim your 15 minutes while you can!
There's a photo right here. What's the problem?
Send them a picture of Rondo Hatton
Either that one or the goat photo. But I was unclear, he wants to take a picture. This sort of thing isn't new to me, it's just been a while since I've had to deal with it. What I'm afraid of is that he's going to make it sound like I do nothing all day but comment on SFGate.com, despite my statements to the contrary.
I sure hope you put in a plug for Brushfires. I mean, that's how you spend the parts of you day that aren't on SFGate, right? (Or, are you cheating on me with another blog?!?!?!)
In fact, my dear hostess, I did mention this blog, as well as an email group of long standing (11 years) of which I am a participant. If you like, I can send him a link.
wv: judge
From your pixels to Arnold's ears....
"Should a RINO meet a PUMA comin' through the rye..."
I agree with Lefty. Specter won't change his politics to suit the party, he's merely changing his party to keep his seat. And he may truly not want to be associated with a party that is becoming further and further divorced from its core values (correct use of 'its' JMF? ;-))
Congratulations on the recognition for your hard work, dsgonzale6.
Lefty, I think your concerns about Specter's moderating influence on the DP are well stated, yet there is some evidence that when Senators switch parties their voting pattern changes dramatically. Because the parties are now so polarized and PA is trending Democratic, Specter's switch may result in dramatic changes in the way in which he votes. Note how dramatically Richard Shelby and Ben Campbell changed after shifting to the Republicans.
http://tiny.cc/QuH2w
Ferret, you're such an idiot. Lunatics taking up arms against the government? How do you think this country was started if not by a "lunatic" fringe taking up arms against their government. You sound like a snot nosed monarchist, really.
Second amendment. Still one of our rights for use against a tyrannical government. I know that our publicschools no longer teach anything but rainbow flag tolerance as civics these days, but some of us still remember the founding of our country and why it was done.
People that sacrificed the least in the making of this country are always the first to to take freedom for granted and always the first in line to take advantage of the sacrifices of those who made it possible. Why is that?
wv: catte
The DAR schtick is getting tired, Gavone. How big is the Latin blood section of DAR, anyway? " People that sacrificed the least in the making of this country are always the first to to take freedom for granted." So old of a hag are you anyway? Were you there for War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII? And you think recent advantages are taking advantage of America; and should be derisively called swami and accused of having a racial inferiority complex that makes them unfairly attack white people?
You should learn how to do humor right from the image I sent of the three generations of your family.
DSG, I would put my foot down at the photo. Smells suspicious to me. That's just me, though. I'm not as prolific as some. :)
Also, I don't think the republican party is dead. They're just a bit forlorn - they'll pick up their skirts, dust them off and then get going again, somehow...maybe they can find another Terry Schiavo to rally around. Who knows?
now now
dsg's plug for this blog may get published on sfgate any minute. We should all be on our best behavior when the inquisitive new visitors arrive.
gina - your knowledge of US history is a little suspect. The revolution wasn't against the 'government' - it was against a monarchy.
Are you saying that it's okay to take up arms against the government? For exactly what crimes does the current government deserve to be overthrown?
Mark up another 'lunatic' in the fring...your rants would be funny if I didn't fear that you were serious!
dsgonzale6 writes: "a) the U.S. must be allied to Israel because it is a fairly democratic nation in a key region". "Fairly" is of course a hedge word that allows dsg to recognize implicitly yet not grapple with what problems the treatment of Arabs within Israel and in the occupied territories creates for the Israeli self-image as the only true democratic output in the MIddle East. The question is what we make of the challenges posed by Jimmy Carter and Ilan Pappé.
Thanks, hartal, but it isn't hard work and it's not a recognition that I have sought. I just don't want to end up looking silly; as I've said, past experience with the media makes me wary.
FH, they're coming to my office to take the photo. And the guy checks out (internet-wise) as one of SFGate.com's staff contributors to the Tech Chronicles blog.
WT, great animal allusions, but we expect no less coming from a big cat such as yourself.
Gina, I think you're right that the Second Amendment has some roots in the notion that the people might need to be armed against the government, but I don't think we're anywhere near the level of tyranny that would justify such action. The problems with our government aren't really systematic, they're mainly a result of historical forces. and can be remedied by normal action without resort to revolution, in my view. As I see it, the question is whether cost of remedying the wrongs through revolution is less than the cost of remedying the wrongs through normal action.
Obama seems to be a step in the right direction, so I would like to give him a chance. Someone wrote a letter to Time this week saying that he believes that "our nation is on the road to destruction and that the President and his staff are responsible." That opinion is nuts, and I hope that fellow doesn't have a gun.
hartal, you're exactly right about my comment.
Except, of course, that one of the reasons I say I don't understand the Israel fixation because it's obvious to me that the U.S. must put pressure on Israel to correct its problems with its treatment of the Palestinians. As a friendly ally, certainly, but pressure nonetheless.
wv: knesses
Oops, I meant Suza, not FH. I was distracted by the doggie. :)
dsg - thanks for clearing that up, I was confused! I'll be looking for a nice beefcake shot, suitable for framing! ;-)
FH, it's too bad I only started going back to the gym 2 months ago, rather than a year ago.
Here's something interesting and somewhat depressing from Krugman's blog, which raises the question of the limits of our economy:
"For what it’s worth, a key conclusion from the IMF’s new World Economic Outlook is that recessions caused by financial crisis typically end with export booms, with the trade balance improving, on average, by more than 3 percent of GDP. I find this a disturbing result: we’re now suffering from a global financial crisis, which means that the usual driver of recovery will only be available if we can find another planet to export to."
I think the next couple of years are going to be really lean.
Income=investment+ private consumption+ government spending+net exports.
That's how it's taught in Econ I. So in this crisis, private investment has been scared off, private consumption is maxed out already with seconds and credit cards, and net exports will be weak as a result of the global slow down (when Japan's crisis hit in the 90s, it had the fortune of a vibrant US market). All the pressure is on G, this is why Krugman is arguing that the deficit financed stimulus is too small. Robert Reich hopes that a better distribution of income via better labor policy will strengthen C as workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
But the problem is that too much deficit financed spending and too high wages may scare off private investment: business may fear that the govt will tax away future profit income to relieve the debt and business may have its confidence rocked by higher wage costs.
Now the good news is that the govt has been able to borrow at very cheap rates and there has been no crowd out effect in the capital markets. So the deficit spending is only putting a floor on the economy and allowing business to work off excess capacity and not shut down all long term projects.
So far, Obama is doing as well as one could expect given the gravity of the situation.
But I definitely agree with dsg that we are not out of the woods, and the dearth of export possibilities just gives us a lot less room to maneuver.
I'm reading an interesting book right now. Bruce Weber, As They See 'Em. It's about professional baseball umpires. Weber studies to be and then actually works as an ump as part of his research.
The book could've been a lot shorter and more elegantly written. But if you like baseball you'll probably enjoy it.
I think Krugman's "another planet to export to" joke was pretty funny.
Of course, Obama would have to lift Bush's Romulan embargo
I didn't hear the press conference last night but from a transcript I think the President made a remarkable yet totally ignored comment. From what I have read it seems that he may be our first President to have questioned whether growth in itself is the paramount goal and the criteria by which we measure the health of the economy. He seemed to subordinate growth to the development of a truly equal opportunity economic system for all, a system in which everyone's hard efforts would be rewarded and in which anyone who wanted to work could work.
To get a sense of how important growth in itself has been as an ideology, check out this quote:
http://tiny.cc/UHnh9
hartal, interesting book. I hadn't heard Obama's comment, but he's made a number of remarkable statements since he's taken office that call into question a lot of basic assumptions people have had about what's best for this country and its people, and I think it's great. It's going to take a lot to accomplish the changes that are required to defeat those assumptions, but at least he's started the discussion. Re growth, more than one person has made the comparison between this economic paradigm and cancer.
The tiny link is broken--perhaps they don't last if they are to google books. The quote is by McNeill in a book by Speth. So if you google McNeill growth Speth you'll find the quote on growth
To understand the environmental crisis, I recommend the book by James Speth, Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs and the National Geographic video on Mark Lynas Six Degrees: Towards a Warmer Planet.
Our President is a profound man, a true leader by my measure. One thing that goes unnoticed about him--and, Gina, racial prejudice has something to do with it--is that he is obviously a very hard worker. And hard work is obviously the key to his intelligence. He is so damn prepared with a great grasp of detail and nuance.
His liberal Keynesian project may still fail, but it won't fail for lack of thought and effort on his part.
hartal, your link worked, I did see the quote, but I actually went on to read more of the book, which I found interesting. Sorry for any confusion.
And according to Krugman, Obama's approach will fail because it's not bold enough (i.e., the gov't spending is too modest).
dsg, what's your reading of Krugman? Is he saying that because the stimulus is only 75% as big as it should be, it won't do any work at all? Or is he saying that it'll only do 75% of what is needed? Or is he saying that the economic activity that the stimulus would have created won't obtain because the banking system will be paralyzed as the nationalization that Obama has put off the table ("we're not Sweden; we have our free market traditions") is a necessary condition to get credit flowing again?
dsg, is this a more recent comment you refer to or what he said about a month or so ago?
I am not sure what Krugman is saying. At one point he seemed to be suggesting that an inadequate stimulus is like a half completed bridge: it gets you nowhere.
Then he seemed to be granting that the stimulus would do a lot of good work, but it would have done more good work had it been weighed more toward spending rather than tax cuts, and been bigger as well.
On the financial system he seems to be saying that bailout is more expensive than a nationalization and that there is no reason that the banks won't still hoard cash and refuse to lend. But I think his point is that this will weaken rather than neutralize the stimulus. So I think, overall, what he is saying is that the stimulus won't reduce unemployment any where near as much as it should, given full employment as a goal.
The stimulus is too weighted towards tax cuts rather than spending; it is too small; and its stimulative effect will be weakened by a a private banking sector fealty to which has prevented President Obama from taking the action that would really get credit flowing again.
Overall, I get the feeling that Krugman does not think that we will come out of this downturn anywhere near as strong as we came out of the 80-82 downturn. So we know that the Republicans will then argue that this is because Reagan's fiscal policy was weighed even more heavily towards tax cuts.
But that won't be the truth. The truth is that US then could enjoy good net exports especially as the dollar came down and that the US economy got a jolt from the reversal of Volcker's hard money policy. This time we won't have strong net exports (even if the dollar comes down as the world economy will remain weak) and the jolt from suddenly loose monetary policy.
But I am not convinced by Krugman's argument that even bigger deficit spending projects would save the day. My guess is that we are in for long period of economic stagnation.
Ted, the Krugman comment was a fairly recent entry on his blog, but I didn't notice whether it was the most recent one or not.
Hartal, I've read other articles by Krugman where he said that FDR got worried about the deficit and started to cut spending, and that action was what ended the recovery, so I think he may be saying that a timid action may not be enough to get us out of the hole, but I haven't seen him address this specifically. He may have, but I haven't been reading him thoroughly.
The only reason I asked, dsg, was I read him saying something about that a while back but I thought he concluded that he believed there would be a second stimulus package so I was just wondering if he had been re-thinking.
Thanks
come on, dsg. How'd the photo shoot go? When's the piece get published? Was this experience with journalists any better than the past?
Yeah, and did you pose with shades, a martini glass and a cigarette? Full white James Bondsian tux?
C'mon. Spill!
I really wish I were convinced that the contraction of fiscal policy was the only or even main reason for the downturn in 1937. But I don't think Krugman, DeLong and most importantly Romer have made the case. And I'm on their side, politically but there were several reasons the economy slid again--firms had run up against the inventory accumulation that they were doing given the threat of inflation (I was harping on this point at DeLong's blog and Christina Romer actually recognized the argument in recent Congressional testimony), businesses were fearing labor unrest,, businesses were fearing FDR's accommodation of labor in the Wagner Act; businesses were fearing that government programs were making the labor market too tight and thus empowering labor even more. In short, I don't think the liberal-left voices have knocked the right wing arguments out of the ball park yet. But they do make a very good point. Labor was even more empowered in the 50s and the economy boomed again. So it should be possible to fix the economy while allowing labor to get off its back.
have these trash cans always been at the bottom of one's own posts? Or is this a new feature? Is this a warning that my comments are about to go in the trash?
Holy shit!!
Judge Souter is retiring.
Hizzoner Mr. "I'll just have an apple and some cottage cheese for lunch, thank you" Souter is retiring!!
Holy Underwear!!
As I wrote long ago, a puff piece that nonetheless suggests Obama's depth and capacity for (and regard for) hard work.
http://ls.berkeley.edu/?q=node/832
dsg: what's up? Are you out on the town with the journalists and their expense-account temptations?
no one, the little trash can is a way for people to delete their own comments (you can't delete someone else's). In case you wanted to rewrite something, or felt you had too many typos or errors (that's what I use it for.)
wv: iMuddle
First Souter, then Ginsburg, then Stevens. Will Kennedy have the courage to go early? Maybe Thomas will explode in shame. One thing I'm confident of (Mikva the mentor), Obama will choose replacements well.
(btw, I've admired R.B. Ginsburg since I stumbled across an old Rutgers Law Review article she wrote about, among other things, the res judicata effect of administrative decisions. Tough to explain. Truth is, she was the women's movement equivalent of Thurgood Marshall.)
WT, so you're not seeing a trash can under my posts? I see them under all posts submitted by an unregistered name. Given that people have assumed my identity, it's only a matter of time before someone flushes all my posts down the toilet. It makes me sad and mad because I put a lot of time into the research of what I have written. I have truly meant to argue at a high and informed level, but there are at least a couple of people here who have very low regard for me. So I hope that some of you enjoyed what I posted.
xoot, I'm actually amazed Thomas hasn't burst into flames by now.
And WT, until I read your post, I hadn't noticed but apparently unregistered posts have a trash can so anyone *could* delete.
Of course, there's a simple solution to this.
Register.
Sure but the old posts can be trashed. I tried to register but someone had already taken the hartal name just as someone had already taken the yogi name.
No One, I only see the trash can under my own posts, not under unregistered users' posts. That's odd. Someone already took the name hartal? weird...
test, ok I see that all I had to do was reset my password given that I had tried some time ago to set up my own blog.
Xoot, you know how the evening can get busy, I'm just getting around to sitting down to look online and work on a contract that I haven't been able to finish. Tomorrow is also going to be fairly full, but the photographer will be at my office in the afternoon for the photo. I'll be coming in from a morning of meetings for the Y (they told us to dress "nice casual"), so they'll just have to take what they can get. I also decided that I don't want the photo taken in my office; it's too messy right now, I don't want to bother to clean it up, and I don't like people I don't know having access to confidential stuff. The photo can be taken in the conference room or the lobby. I don't know when the article is coming out, and I'm leery to know more about it than I already do. I just get the feeling that I've been too nice in agreeing to talk on the record and that it will come back to bite me in the butt. I know the drill when it comes to dealing with the media for clients, but for myself, I feel like a deer in the headlights.
I hope the article comes out on Saturday.
wv: meticide
What? Do you mean that someone can just delete me? After all the work I've done? After all the effort I've put into researching my facts, developing my theories and crafting my posts? (I read each on out loud and listen to the recording before I make the final edits, you know.)
I'm devastated. I can't even spell the word "one" anymore.
Excuse me, ferretti. They were subjects of the crown. Wasn't that their governing body? The people that made them pay taxes to pay for wars and fancy parties and salaries of rich parliamentary fat cats? What is the second amendment for in your mind? And, I may not not take up arms personally, but I have spoken to enough people that would be willing to should they be subject to government tyranny. I ain't kidding, either.
And, no one, just what have you or your family contributed to the making of this country? I mean besides the obvious gas leaks?
Dsg. I agree with you about things not being close to a revolution. I was just stating that I believe that there are people still willing to take up arms against tyranny. And, it is still one of our rights--at least the way I understand the second and why it was written.
Regarding Obama. I haven't uttered one derisive or critical word about him yet. Unlike some people on this bloggity blog.
Another thing. What the hell were you thinking dsg when you went and invited the world on over to our private blog? I happen like exclusive. you know. Being the bigot that I am.
wv:lessing
Gavone, what is it that you have contributed to the discussion of politics on this blog? And in true nativist fashion Gavone raises suspicions of my belonging on the grounds of her skepticism that my family and I have made insufficient contributions to be considered first class citizens. Which of course raises a dilemma for me. For if I tell her what those contributions have been, I shall be participating in her nativist tests of our having to meet the suspicions of those who claim rights from bloodlines. Suffice to say, I work, pay my taxes and raise my children to be good citizens of this country and the world too.
Income=investment+ private consumption+ government spending+net exports.
That's how it's taught in Econ I. So in this crisis, private investment has been scared off, private consumption is maxed out already with seconds and credit cards, and net exports will be weak as a result of the global slow down (when Japan's crisis hit in the 90s, it had the fortune of a vibrant US market). All the pressure is on G, this is why Krugman is arguing that the deficit financed stimulus is too small. Robert Reich hopes that a better distribution of income via better labor policy will strengthen C as workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
But the problem is that too much deficit financed spending and too high wages may scare off private investment: business may fear that the govt will tax away future profit income to relieve the debt and business may have its confidence rocked by higher wage costs.
Now the good news is that the govt has been able to borrow at very cheap rates and there has been no crowd out effect in the capital markets. So the deficit spending is only putting a floor on the economy and allowing business to work off excess capacity and not shut down all long term projects.
So far, Obama is doing as well as one could expect given the gravity of the situation.
But I definitely agree with dsg that we are not out of the woods, and the dearth of export possibilities just gives us a lot less room to maneuver.
I really wish I were convinced that the contraction of fiscal policy was the only or even main reason for the downturn in 1937. But I don't think Krugman, DeLong and most importantly Romer have made the case. And I'm on their side, politically but there were several reasons the economy slid again--firms had run up against the inventory accumulation that they were doing given the threat of inflation (I was harping on this point at DeLong's blog and Christina Romer actually recognized the argument in recent Congressional testimony), businesses were fearing labor unrest,, businesses were fearing FDR's accommodation of labor in the Wagner Act; businesses were fearing that government programs were making the labor market too tight and thus empowering labor even more. In short, I don't think the liberal-left voices have knocked the right wing arguments out of the ball park yet. But they do make a very good point. Labor was even more empowered in the 50s and the economy boomed again. So it should be possible to fix the economy while allowing labor to get off its back.
Income=investment+ private consumption+ government spending+net exports.
That's how it's taught in Econ I. So in this crisis, private investment has been scared off, private consumption is maxed out already with seconds and credit cards, and net exports will be weak as a result of the global slow down (when Japan's crisis hit in the 90s, it had the fortune of a vibrant US market). All the pressure is on G, this is why Krugman is arguing that the deficit financed stimulus is too small. Robert Reich hopes that a better distribution of income via better labor policy will strengthen C as workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
But the problem is that too much deficit financed spending and too high wages may scare off private investment: business may fear that the govt will tax away future profit income to relieve the debt and business may have its confidence rocked by higher wage costs.
Now the good news is that the govt has been able to borrow at very cheap rates and there has been no crowd out effect in the capital markets. So the deficit spending is only putting a floor on the economy and allowing business to work off excess capacity and not shut down all long term projects.
So far, Obama is doing as well as one could expect given the gravity of the situation.
But I definitely agree with dsg that we are not out of the woods, and the dearth of export possibilities just gives us a lot less room to maneuver.
I am not sure what Krugman is saying. At one point he seemed to be suggesting that an inadequate stimulus is like a half completed bridge: it gets you nowhere.
Then he seemed to be granting that the stimulus would do a lot of good work, but it would have done more good work had it been weighed more toward spending rather than tax cuts, and been bigger as well.
On the financial system he seems to be saying that bailout is more expensive than a nationalization and that there is no reason that the banks won't still hoard cash and refuse to lend. But I think his point is that this will weaken rather than neutralize the stimulus. So I think, overall, what he is saying is that the stimulus won't reduce unemployment any where near as much as it should, given full employment as a goal.
The stimulus is too weighted towards tax cuts rather than spending; it is too small; and its stimulative effect will be weakened by a a private banking sector fealty to which has prevented President Obama from taking the action that would really get credit flowing again.
Overall, I get the feeling that Krugman does not think that we will come out of this downturn anywhere near as strong as we came out of the 80-82 downturn. So we know that the Republicans will then argue that this is because Reagan's fiscal policy was weighed even more heavily towards tax cuts.
But that won't be the truth. The truth is that US then could enjoy good net exports especially as the dollar came down and that the US economy got a jolt from the reversal of Volcker's hard money policy. This time we won't have strong net exports (even if the dollar comes down as the world economy will remain weak) and the jolt from suddenly loose monetary policy.
But I am not convinced by Krugman's argument that even bigger deficit spending projects would save the day. My guess is that we are in for long period of economic stagnation.
I didn't hear the press conference last night but from a transcript I think the President made a remarkable yet totally ignored comment. From what I have read it seems that he may be our first President to have questioned whether growth in itself is the paramount goal and the criteria by which we measure the health of the economy. He seemed to subordinate growth to the development of a truly equal opportunity economic system for all, a system in which everyone's hard efforts would be rewarded and in which anyone who wanted to work could work.
To get a sense of how important growth in itself has been as an ideology, check out this quote:
http://tiny.cc/UHnh9
To understand the environmental crisis, I recommend the book by James Speth, Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs and the National Geographic video on Mark Lynas Six Degrees: Towards a Warmer Planet.
Our President is a profound man, a true leader by my measure. One thing that goes unnoticed about him--and, Gina, racial prejudice has something to do with it--is that he is obviously a very hard worker. And hard work is obviously the key to his intelligence. He is so damn prepared with a great grasp of detail and nuance.
His liberal Keynesian project may still fail, but it won't fail for lack of thought and effort on his part.
just copied old comments in case someone decides to flush the comments of no one in particular
hartal - paranoia is not an attractive trait in anybody...
don't know what's paranoid about worrying about the possibility that someone (qua?gina?TedSpe?woohoo?) would flush my posts, given that my name was hijacked and that the moderator who is now insulting me cheered that on.
For anyone interested, I compiled all of my posts and archived them over on one of the shorter MSM threads. The new blog format forced me to publish several "volumes." That was some hard work. Also, I had to strike all actual reference to hartal, to slip by the censors. I replaced the word with a frowning-face emoticon. You can tell where my works start because I supplied a title, in caps:
A ZEST FOR LIFE: The Collected Works of . . . .
Enjoy!
hartal - again, joking!!! I'll try to remember to include the smiley face in future posts.
I did not encourage anyone to steal your screen name. As I said, officially I condemned it. However - again, humor! - as satire of your style it was very funny.
You often have useful things to contribute here, and I enjoy your contributions. However, I think you and I would both enjoy your time here more if you could just lighten up a little bit when it comes to comments...it's generally a sign of affection to occasionally take the piss out of people. I saw from the caption post that you do have a sense of humor - let us see a little bit more of that side of you, okay?
The photographer's gone now. Nice guy. He never even mentioned shooting in my office, he took a bunch of shots in the conference room and the library. Thank God that's all over, it was driving me nuts.
wv: foolsheo
I'm sure you did us (bloggers) proud, DSG! :)
Whew! I thought that you were being set up to use your picture for this list. I knew you did not actually belong but you can never trust those rat scum journalists.
http://tiny.cc/LKWTl
Did you bring your Rickenbacker to the shoot?
The photographer was very kind, and made no cracks about the cracks I made in his lens.....
My Ricky never comes to my office. It's better that way....
My Ricky never comes to my office. It's better that way....
dsg -- I hope the library shot wasn't the stock case reporter background. Anyway, sounds like you won't get a quiet Saturday turnaround. Sunday limelight?
Good God, no. I want it buried.
wv: pauteds
I am wary of calling Israel a democratic outpost, and I think it's highly misleading to refer to a battle by the secular Pakistani state against Islamic fundamentalism--the Pakistani state is theocratic by design.
http://tiny.cc/hBmJk
Perhaps I can be accused of bias, but I was born and raised here. And it does seem to me that Cold War politics has prevented the US from being true to its values by prizing the relationship with India over its relationships with a settler colonial state (Israel), a theocracy (Pakistan) and an authoritarian statist society (China).
Only because George Bush wanted to create problems for China did he push the civilian nuclear technology deal with India. Respect for our democratic values had nothing to do with it.
The US has simply never had proper respect for its own value and a country that has struggled to maintain itself as a constitutional democracy in the face of cultural diversity and economic problems that dwarf anything we have ever had in the US.
As I said, I have been trying to follow the situation that is unfolding in Pakistan. Juan Cole is persuasive however that the talk of an imminent Taliban take over of a nuclear state is completely deluded. Even President Obama was forced to back off Secty of State Clinton's dire warnings. The Taliban establishing control sixty miles away from the capital no more proves it is about to take power than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell having headquarters close to Washington D.C.
I am wary of calling Israel a democratic outpost, and I think it's highly misleading to refer to a battle by the secular Pakistani state against Islamic fundamentalism--the Pakistani state is theocratic by design.
http://tiny.cc/hBmJk
Perhaps I can be accused of bias, but I was born and raised here. And it does seem to me that Cold War politics has prevented the US from being true to its values by prizing the relationship with India over its relationships with a settler colonial state (Israel), a theocracy (Pakistan) and an authoritarian statist society (China).
Only because George Bush wanted to create problems for China did he push the civilian nuclear technology deal with India. Respect for our democratic values had nothing to do with it.
The US has simply never had proper respect for its own value and a country that has struggled to maintain itself as a constitutional democracy in the face of cultural diversity and economic problems that dwarf anything we have ever had in the US.
As I said, I have been trying to follow the situation that is unfolding in Pakistan. Juan Cole is persuasive however that the talk of an imminent Taliban take over of a nuclear state is completely deluded. Even President Obama was forced to back off Secty of State Clinton's dire warnings. The Taliban establishing control sixty miles away from the capital no more proves it is about to take power than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell having headquarters close to Washington D.C.
erase
oh sorry I can no longer erase submissions under unregistered names.
For a good laugh, check out the SF Chronicle's coverage of what is transpiring in Pakistan. I still can't believe that the editors let Edward Gomez go; at least he would have provided links to some of the best coverage.
Can't find the article about dsg.
Here's Fareed Zakaria about Pakistan's double game. Actually Ahmed Rashid has a better grasp of all this.
http://tiny.cc/B7Si0
Well, he didn't say for certain that it would be printed, and there is at least one other person who was interviewed.
Why are you assuming pedro is illegal?
Let's see if this works
I don't assume pedro is illegal, but I'm pretty sure he has swine flu.
Why I Fight!
This avatar will do. Can't wait for the next Gone With the Wind discussion.
http://tiny.cc/b795N
Yup, time for a Latino S Ct Justice
For Yogi
http://tiny.cc/ZLKYE
It's difficult to comment on a jury verdict based on a news article alone, without seeing all of the evidence that the jury saw. Having said that, the fact that MALDEF was involved tells me that they felt there were bigger issues at play, and I respect their judgment on these matters.
Shoot me now.
Your caution is justified, and I did not want to jump to conclusions. Yet you have at least a copule of guys--maybe more, and football players too-- seemingly beating on just one person who ends up dead. And the jury is lenient on the gang that killed. Perhaps the jury thought that the prosecutors gave immunity to those who actually murdered the victim? Or perhaps the jury did not care about the victim and thus the crime not because he was Mexican but because he was dating an underage girl? Or perhaps it was because he was a Mexican dating an underage girl that made him a perfect target for hardening xenophobic hatred? But you're right that we can't reach any conclusions based on this article.
oh my goodness you're famous, dsgonzale6.
DSG! Your story and picture are on the front page!
You're like a local celebrity now...
and a braver man than I - whoo-ee, I can just imagine what Mr. Suza would say if I were asked to do that (starts with Hell and ends with NO). Fortunately, it is a moot point as no one did. I am not that prolific. :-D
also, you look very professional. nice photo. you could totally use that for linkedin.
Interesting article. I don't know if I fancy that "fancies himself" crack, but hey: it isn't me. ;-)
wv: alspoe (sports drink for dogs)
Well, it's not exactly the beef cake shot I had requested, but it's a find photo nonetheless. Good job, dsg! I like how the article got both your high- & low-brow perspectives.
Well done, dsg! Good stuff you gave the reporter.
(btw, in the photo are those the orange CEB Real Estate practice guides marching off to the left behind your head? Nice touch.)
I should never have talked to the guy. I suppose it could have been worse, but I'm having a hard time imagining how. The page 6 photo is huge--anyone who knows me will immediately recognize me. I guess the photo and my name could have appeared on page 1 with the start of the story, but other than that, it's my worst nightmare.
It makes me sound like a complete and total lightweight. BTW, I didn't use the phrase "fancy myself," that's the writer's editorializing, as was his "wise do-gooder" bit.
Xoot, yes, that is the real estate CEB book; I stood in front of the real estate section in the library here.
And thank you all for not mocking me. I appreciate it greatly.
wv: konme
I see DSG's new publicist is paying off already. Too bad he couldn't slip his phone number into the interview.
Spoke too soon. Thank you, YC, I suppose it would have been worse had I paid for it.
wv: funkabso
I knew that the 'fancies himself phrase' was the reporter's idea: that's why I didn't 'fancy' it. I only read the article online, where the pic wasn't too huge.
I feel for you, dsg. The only time I was ever asked to have my pic appear in a paper, I declined...
http://tiny.cc/2u7Ss
I'm just starting to read the article right now but right away the most fascinating part is to find out DSG's real name is Kimble McSweeney
Oh. Never mind
I thought that was Kindle MacAffee... I need a Korean Boot Camp! ;-)
Hartal, thanks for the link. I might listen to him late at night. Right now I'm obsessed with these two bands.
http://tinyurl.com/6qz6dl
http://tinyurl.com/cb4dcr
One good music link deserves another (there aren't really any good-sounding videos at YouTube for these guys...):
http://www.myspace.com/thewalkmen
What was the original post about? Oh yeah, here's a story about some psycho named Neal Horsely, reminds me of a certain BoF commenter...
"He is now running for governor in Georgia as a Republican and says that he'd kill his own son for liberty. I'm not kidding you.
A longshot Georgia candidate for governor who’s already admitted having sex with a mule before finding God says he’s ready to sacrifice his own son in an effort to get his state to secede from the union.
Neal Horsley made national headlines when he posted the names, phone numbers and addresses of abortion doctors online. His “Nuremberg Files” website also crossed off the names of doctors as they were killed.
Now he’s ready to make new news. In an interview by Dylan Otto Krider published late Wednesday, he indicated he’d kill his own son to dissolve the United States (in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade). Asked if he was ready to sacrifice his own son in a national insurrection, Horsley recounts a fight with his son where he almost killed him. “I was one foot from killing my own son, or hurting him really, really bad,” Horsley told Krider. “If he would have attacked me again, I would have stuck him. Or cut him or sliced him or done something to stop him. That’s the point, you hypothetical has literally already been worked out with me, and that’s what makes me different from the other candidates for Governor
dsg -- it's fine. It's a good thing that your sfgate commentary is presented as something entirely separate from your professional work. The overall message is: Some of the people leaving comments are well-educated, sensible people worth exchanging ideas with.
Wonder what would have happened if the reporter had mentioned this blog?
Don't worry dsg. I told 'em 'NOBODY BUT NO ONE CALLS MY FRIEND DSG A REAL ESTATE LAWYER!' I don't see why they keep saying these horrible things about you. ;)
Thanks, xoot. We'll see how it goes over the next few days or so.
TS, thanks for standing up for me. :)
wv: wartivis
Don't they have a cream for that?
dsg -- I just opened my home-deliver hard-copy Chronicle. The big b/w photo on p.6 looks good. The only issue, I guess,will be the number of comments "per day." HTF do you do that and play guitar, too? (Or, more to the point, why didn't the journalist mention your other accomplishments? (That's a rhetorical Q. We all know why.))
FH -- this cut and paste exercise happens to be on topic. From The Nation:
"A SWITCH IN TIME: Barack Obama promised to change politics, and on April 28 the oldest Republican senator put an exclamation on the point by changing parties. Of course, Arlen Specter's changeover was motivated by more than Obama's "postpartisan" appeal. Specter--a prochoice, pro-civil rights, union-friendly Rockefeller Republican whose vote for the stimulus bill inspired the ire of the right--was all but certain to lose next year's Pennsylvania primary to a conservative challenger.
"The prospect of forced retirement clarifies the mind, and Specter now finds himself "more in line with Democrats." But which Democrats? If he aligns with mushy centrists, his defection won't mean much, even if Dems have the sixty votes to avert filibusters. Nowhere is this more evident than with the Employee Free Choice Act, which Specter and several other Democrats refuse to back. Praise from union leaders for his move suggests that they think he'll help them forge a compromise. But if Specter's switch makes an already compromise-prone Democratic caucus more squishy, then he'll deserve a primary challenge--no matter what the party leaders have promised him. More encouraging is Specter's professed belief in "the need for Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in our system of checks and balances." His recent New York Review of Books article reads as if it was written by Russ Feingold. If Specter changes course on EFCA and fights for civil liberties, he might finish his career where he started--as a liberal Democrat--and his switch could be one of the most important developments of Obama's first 100 days. Let's hope. JOHN NICHOLS"
I have not read anything about what kind of support Specter will have in the primary from DNC and/or DLC
types. I would hope that Axelrod is keeping Specter in line by threatening to support a rival in the primary. But haven't even seen rumors about behind the scenes maneuvering.
It's all about name recognition and personal popularity. The Dems won't have much control over Specter because he's got too much of a base of popularity among Pennsylvanians in general due to his tenure and gravitas. He moved to the Dems for two reasons: (1) He was facing a stiff primary fight where right wing Republicans might lose him his nomination, and (2) the possibility of a 60th vote on some issues was a plum he could offer the Dems that they couldn't resist. I doubt this move will have much effect on many issues; it certainly isn't likely to change the dynamic on this issue. But I can foresee other close votes where his switch could make the difference.
Does that base of popularity all but ensure him a victory in the Democratic primary, though? After all, he probably would have the general if he could have made it through the Republican primary. Perhaps he can be made to feel vulnerable in the Democratic Primary. If Rendell and Nutter were to throw behind someone else in the Democratic primary, Specter could conceivably not make it through, I suspect, even if Obama were supporting Specter in a half-hearted way. But just a guess.
Interesting piece in today's Daily Journal on the defeat in the Senate of the cramdown bill. The author claims Obama did little to fight for it and responded to the vote with silence. (I would post a link if I had one. Why the DJ doesn't put more content on-line I can't understand.) Anyway, looks like the White House is not much interested in fighting losing battles. The card-check bill could be next.
But I think I remember Obama expressing concern in the primary that locking interest rates for some (as recommended by Sen Clinton) would drive lenders to raise interest rates on other borrowers to recoup their losse (I know that's the bankers' argument, but there may be some truth to it)? So perhaps he thought that giving judges cram down power would ultimately do the same overall negative thing.
hartal, I would suspect that Specter figures he would have an easier time with the Dems, who are more diverse and not so ideologically driven, which would make it easier for a guy with name recognition to win, than with the GOP, who have a very active right wing group that can influence primary elections.
as Randi Rhodes once put it - every Republican sounds like Foghorn Leghorn
**
No, no, no,son, you're doing it all wrong. Now pay attention to me boy. Ya think I'm talking just to hear my head roar? This boy's more mixed up then a feather in a whirlwind.
How strong is the PA Move On contingent? Can Specter cross organized labor and Move On and make it through the Democratic primary? I don't think the PA Democrats will be too worried about someone more liberal than Specter losing the general election, given the far right candidate likely coming out of the Republican primary. Specter should be careful about crossing David Axelrod.
Problem for Dems in PA. Seems that Ridge may run in the Republican Primary for Senate, and polls have him winning it and then beating Specter in the general. Ridge who is I believe pro-choice will be blasted by the Right of his party, so maybe he won't actually make it through if he does decide to run. I don't know what his credentials are as a fiscal conservative or whether he spoke out against the bailouts.
Name recognition is extremely important. Ridge v. Specter would be a classic Pennsylvania matchup, though their positions aren't all that different from each other.
It just seems to make more sense to fill Democratic seats with real Democrats. If every Republican defected and became Democrats, the result wouldn't be the death of the Republican party, but a simple name change. I'm wary.
What is a real Democrat? The party is notoriously disorganized. You're right, TS, if all they do is change their affiliation, there's no real change.
That's a good point, dsg. I guess by 'real Democrat' I mean someone who isn't currently a professional Republican. I can also see that for one such as Specter, at times that boundary moves beneath their feet, and the "left" in this country's government is really only "less to the right".
Is it really Ferret's Birthday? If so Happy Happy! :)
wv: killesus (that's just disturbing)
That's not disturbing, winkingtiger. Remember, that which doesn't killesus, makes us stronger.
;)
Happy Birthday, JM!!!
Happy Birthday, ferret! :)
Happy Birthday, dear hostess. I will send you an autographed copy of that photo as a present. ;)
J/K. Instead, I send you best wishes for a terrific birthday.
Obama signs day of prayer proclamation
Unlike predecessor, no public ceremony with clerics, lawmakers or prayers
The Associated Press
updated 10:51 a.m. PT, Thurs., May 7, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is marking today's National Day of Prayer -- but not publicly.
The president has signed a proclamation about the day in private. There'll be no public ceremony involving prominent clerics, lawmakers or prayers, as there was when George W. Bush was in the White House.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says it's not that Obama thinks the observance was getting politicized, as some critics charge. Aides say he's merely returning to the practice that prevailed before Bush took office -- of signing and issuing a proclamation.
Gibbs says Obama is well aware of the role prayer plays in the lives of Americans -- because he begins each day in private worship.
**
Is that different than beginning each day worshipping your privates?
;)
Ted, not much different. :)
What's with all these Taureans running blogs? Another blog-host I know is having his Birthday now, and MLS, and Ferret...hmmm....
wv: eveddium (the toxic nerve gas released by playing Pearl Jam albums)
Eveddium. WT, you one clever mofo. :)
Aw, thanks Ted. Now that I think of it, 'eveddium' sounds radioactive as well... ;-)
Actually, winkingtiger, that was TooSense. But I second his praise. That *is* funny. But so's the Madame Currie remark
;)
WV: plestsi
The standard reply in Spain when someone offers you a plest
Oops, sorry TooSense (and thanks Ted for clearing it up). Too many T's and S's, in my humble opinion, and that's the story I'm sticking to.
LOL! winkingtiger, there's some truth to that. On another blog, that shall remain unnamed, someone referred to me as TS and dsg wrote something like "Please refer to him as Ted or TedSpe. It's too damn confusing otherwise"
Hey, I'm on another blog where one of the main poster's screen names is "William Tell." So all these people are addressing him as WT - it always takes me a second to realize they don't mean me (I am not WInking Tiger over there for obvious reasons). I think I could have read TooSense's original post a little more closely, though. :\
wv: subnest
Post a Comment