I will second Batman Jones' comments. I will stand by my belief that this country needs dissent and I'm for the Republicans challenging Obama's recovery. I don't think the Republicans are being unpatriotic but they are hypocritical. Consider how often they accused others of wanting the President to fail and now many of them are saying the very thing unapolagetically. If they thought that it was unpatriotic to say you wanted the President to fail, no matter what justification, why say it now?
Good point, judoka. By the Republicans' own definition (and basso's) of patriotism, they are definitely being unpatriotic. I just think their definition of patriotism is stupid.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x8hMJVXt09E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x8hMJVXt09E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I got to give props to you guys. I certainly don't see the same attitudes from Republicans towards Dems....perhaps Dems are more inclusive and open than Republicans are - at least from what I am observing.
Props for saying that Republicans are still being patriotic? It would be pretty hypocritical after saying for years that dissent is patriotic to now say it isn't. For that matter I'm not fully sold on Obama's plans and think there needs to be a counter to them in public debate.
Well the GOP are not being unpatriotic. Sorry I voted to say "yes". They are being blinded by their ideology. It is sort of like they thought that by invading Iraq and supporting Bush in his effort they were being patriotic and somehow helpful to America. I guess we should look at the GOP and patriotism sort of like the misguided drug war. The folks who are for the drug war don't really want to hurt America, their policy just has that effect. Similarly with their blind allegiance to libertartian, conservative economic theories against government spending and regulaion hurt America..
I guess the libs are being unpatriotic now too -- looks like Obama's budget doesn't have the votes... Obama needs to right the ship quickly -- he's embarrassing himself and in jeopardy of losing his flock of Sheeple. His flock is a fickle bunch -- a group that drifts in the winds of popular culture and prevailing fads... Even they are realizing that Obama's leadership has been abysmal.
Quick Poll: Which tie color does Obama look best in? __Blue __Red __Black __Grey __White vote! thanks HuffPo
I'm going to take this opportunity to post basso's second-favorite-columnist-after-Paul Krugman-'s March 10 offering, since he has trouble navigating the Times website himself, I will save him the trouble. I could give its own thread, and post no comment. That would be a sweet idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Taking a Depression Seriously By DAVID BROOKS Published: March 9, 2009 The Democratic response to the economic crisis has its problems, but let’s face it, the current Republican response is totally misguided. The House minority leader, John Boehner, has called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. In other words, after a decade of profligacy, the Republicans have decided to demand a rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate. The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is “no.” They’ve apparently decided that it’s easier to repeat the familiar talking points than actually think through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand. If the Republicans wanted to do the country some good, they’d embrace an entirely different approach. First, they’d take the current economic crisis more seriously than the Democrats. The Obama budget projects that the recession will be mild this year and the economy will come surging back in 2010. Democrats apparently think that dealing with the crisis is a part-time job, which leaves the afternoons free to work on long-range plans to reform education, health care, energy and a dozen smaller things. Democrats are counting on a quick recovery to help pay for these long-term projects. Republicans could point out that this crisis is not just an opportunity to do other things. It’s a bloomin’ emergency. Robert Barro of Harvard estimates that there is a 30 percent chance of a depression. Warren Buffett says economic activity “has fallen off a cliff” and is not coming back soon. Stock market declines are destroying $23 trillion in wealth, according to Lawrence Lindsey. Auto production is down by two-thirds since 2005. In China, 20 million migrant laborers have lost their jobs. Investment in developing countries has dropped from $929 billion in 2007 to $165 billion this year. Pension systems are fragile. Household balance sheets are still a wreck. Republicans could argue that it’s Nero-esque for Democrats to be plotting extensive renovations when the house is on fire. They could point out that history will judge this president harshly if he’s off chasing distant visions while the markets see a void where his banking policy should be. Second, Republicans could admit that they don’t know what the future holds, and they’re not going to try to make long-range plans based on assumptions that will be obsolete by summer. Unlike the Democrats, they’re not for making trillions of dollars in long-term spending commitments until they know where things stand. Instead, they’re going to focus obsessively on restoring equilibrium first, and they’re going to understand that there is a sharp distinction between crisis policy-making and noncrisis policy-making. In times like these, you’d do things you would never do normally. When it’s over, we can go back to our regularly scheduled debates. Third, Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism. Global capitalism is an innovative force, they could argue, but we have been reminded of its shortcomings. When exogenous forces like the rise of China and a flood of easy money hit the global marketplace, they can throw the entire system of out of whack, leading to a cascade of imbalances: higher debt, a grossly enlarged financial sector and unsustainable bubbles. If the free market party doesn’t offer the public an honest appraisal of capitalism’s weaknesses, the public will never trust it to address them. Power will inevitably slide over to those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole. Fourth, Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once. That would mean being out front with ideas to support the wealth-creating parts of the economy rather than merely propping up the fading parts. That would mean supporting President Obama’s plan for global stimulus coordination, because right now most of the world is free-riding off our expenditures. That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail, because a cascade of insolvency would inevitably lead to full-scale nationalization. It would mean coming up with a bold banking plan, rather than just whining about whatever the Democrats have on offer. Finally, Republicans could make it clear that that the emergency has to be followed by an era of balance. This crisis was fueled by financial decadence, and public debt could be 80 percent of G.D.P. by the time it’s over. Republicans should be the party of restoring fiscal balance — whatever it takes — not trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If Republicans were to treat this like a genuine emergency, with initiative-grabbing approaches, they may not get their plans enacted, but voters would at least give them another look. Do I expect them to shift course in this manner? Not really.
TJ, don't you mean the market approved of Obama's plan today since it had a record day? I mean, that's the logic you and basso use right? If it's down, it's Obama's fault, if it's up, it's because of you?
We're not talking about dissent though. Dissent is a good thing if it is being used to push a better agenda through. But in this case, you have many Republicans who are opposing for political gain, and in fact stating they want Obama to fail. That's a big difference don't you think?
How do you decide which dissent is being used to push a better agenda? If you support the prevailing view than practically any dissent could be seen as unproductive.
But when republicans say they want Obama to fail as a president - that counts as dissent? I don't know, but saying you want the president to fail (in other words that the economy gets worse) is pretty eye-opening. It might be ok if you have millions of dollars in liquid assets, but it's pretty disturbing that youd' want your fellow citizens to suffer so they will vote republican next time. It really reminds me of a lot of liberals who said they were kind of excited and happy when the Iraq campaign failed and a lot of the troop deaths went higher and higher...it's the same exact thing. Both groups really are unpatriotic if you ask me.
Not meaning to call you out Sweet Lou and don’t want to derail the thread. But please point out anyone on this board that was “excited and happy when the Iraq campaign failed and a lot of the troop deaths went higher and higher...” We may have protested the criminal war and wanted it to end, but No-one was happy or excited to see the war fail.
Yes very much so. If you don't agree with the direction that the leader is taking the country I think it is legitimate dissent to say that you want that leader to fail. Movements on the outside of power are often willing to foment disaster with the understanding that the more things get worse for the party in power the better their chances. For example at a Nader rally in 2000 one of the speakers addressed the issue that voting for Nader might mean that GW Bush is elected by saying that that was a good thing since GW Bush would make things so bad that it would make it more likely for real change, as represented by Nader and the Greens, to come to power. Or for a more concrete example why insurgents attacks infrastructure knowing full well that that means more suffering for the very people they claim to be fighting for. In general most blame for problems falls on the party in power even if the party of out of power are the ones causing problems. I will agree this is very cynical but this is a principle that the Founders were very aware of which is why they set up a systems of checks in balances where a minority could make things difficult for the majority. I also think this is a necessity of a free and open society that there is a method, short of violence, to publically and politically express discontent. IN the end if the public does direct consider Republicans as being obstructionists then they will suffer further at the polls. Patriotism is a relative term but I don't subscribe to the idea that either party has a monopoly on it or to what is right for the country. Obama clearly has a vision of the what he thinks is right for the country and Republicans see that differently. If Republicans truly believe that what Obama is doing is wrong then it is patriotic of them to resist it and hope it fails. My criticism of them is hypocrisy since while they were in power they used absolutist languange that any opposition of the President's policy was unpatriotic. It is true now as it was 4 years ago that the President or his policies isn't the country.
I don't think anyone wrote that on the board to my recollection. It was more from liberals I know in NYC. Friends and such.
