Thursday, May 12, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)
Dick Lugar is probably just spinning, but if he's predicting he'll hold all the Republicans -- rather than saying he may lose one or two -- you have to think he'll pull it out. The urgent campaign to flip Lincoln Chafee also points to a Bolton confirmation, I think.
What does this mean for the nuclear option and Social Security? Under the old model of Washington power politics, which prevailed under Clinton, expending capital on a fight like Bolton would leave the White House depleted and inclined to give in on something else. Power was seen as finite -- roughly analogous to the theory of mercantilism. On this model, William Schneider argues in the National Journal that Bush's low poll numbers bode ill.
But the Bush White House has a different view of power. Exercising power, in its view, creates more power -- the way expending force doing daily reps at the weight room makes you stronger. A Bolton victory, I think, is likely give Bush the additional strength he needs to pull wavering senators into line on abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees and, if he moves fast enough, to put through a Social Security plan that includes privatization.
It's like a Soviet military parade: displaying power makes people fear your power.
posted by on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM
"It's like a Soviet military parade: displaying power makes people fear your power."
Thats nice. How about 'nothing succeeds like success?'.
I dont know whats worse, the Catholics electing a Catholic pope or the Republican senate passing Republican measures from a Republican president. 4% of your SS privatized, one step from the gulag.posted by: Mark Buehner on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
Re: "It's like a Soviet military parade etc."
Says absolutely everything about your inability to construct an intellectual response to what amounts to nothing more than the usual hard-ball politics. Congressional Democrats are coming up against the first administration in more than thirty years that doesn't cower when attacked. Let's face it, John Bolton was MEAN to his staff on a few occassions in the past twenty years. What could possibly be worse?
Sometimes its like Republicans have their own agenda or something...posted by: Mark Buehner on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
The irony in attacking a Republican president by comparing him to the Soviet Union is utterly breathtaking. Or perhaps irony isn't actually the word I'm looking for.posted by: cwp on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
Appointments are not money. The outcomes on Bolton and the judicial filibuster mean nothing concerning Social Security.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
And this post by Mr. Greenberg is intended to do what?
What type of discourse can be engendered by this type of characterization? Where do we go? How to take it?
Do we just spit on each other (euphemistically speaking)? Is that what Mr. Greenberg wants to have us do?
Please, Mr. Greenberg, try elevating the level of discourse. No side - Left or Right - has a monopoly on conducting spitting contests. The spittle from the Right can be as voluminous as from the Left.
But all it does is make a mess. Which is what this blog is turning into.
SMGposted by: SteveMG on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
And this post by Mr. Greenberg is intended to do what?
Vent bile and offend others, as near as I can tell. It does not further any discussion.
How can he not be aware of how offensive comparing a US Presidential administration to a Soviet military parade is? Not just on the obvious level, either- look at the state of the 'Soviet' military today.
Feh.posted by: rosignol on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
"I dont know whats worse, the Catholics electing a Catholic pope or the Republican senate passing Republican measures from a Republican president. 4% of your SS privatized, one step from the gulag."
Actually, it's not 4% of your Social Security, it's 2/3 of your Social Security. The suggested plan is to subtract 4% out of the 6% currently allocated to Social Security as a whole, not to merely take 4% of of what is currently allocated to Social Security as a percentage. While that may not be one step from the Gulag, it is a big financial difference.posted by: mistermark on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
This Greenberg guy is a prof.? Did I get that right. This entry was a joke of his wasn't. He's presenting a caricature of the caricature of shallow sycophantic liberal profs to amuse us. He's a riot, this Greenberg. I mean I can go to any bar in America sit down and nine times out of ten meet someone with more to say and who says it better. But it was all a joke, right? If not, you got some scam going Mr. Greenberg, I mean making money off your "intellect" and all. I wouldn't want to live or be in a place that takes you seriously. So I won't.
Bobposted by: Bob on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
"Power was seen as finite..."
This is also analogous to how the left views wealth, which explains alot.
"The suggested plan is to subtract 4% out of the 6% currently allocated to Social Security as a whole..."
Actually is 4% out of the 12% that is allocated, which is 1/3 of SS. God forbid that people not be completely dependent on government.posted by: err on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
If Bill Clinton had had a similar size majority we would all be on the Hillary Care dole.posted by: Huggy on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
"Actually is 4% out of the 12% that is allocated, which is 1/3 of SS. God forbid that people not be completely dependent on government."
I stand corrected. The 4% in question comes from 12% allocated for Social Security, not 6%. That's what I get for posting at the end of the day and without consulting my notes.
Also, I agree that people should not be completely dependent on government. It is terrible for anyone to find themselves in that state. However, if one does find oneself in that state (due to sickness, injury, bankruptcy or just plain bad luck), it is good to have a social insurance system in place as a back-up, so as to prevent complete impoverishment. That's why protecting Social Security is necessary. No one is arguing against savings or investments. It's just good to have that bit of additional back-up for people to count on. Call it part of the cover charge for living in a civilized country.posted by: mistermark on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
posted by: dd on 05.12.05 at 08:44 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: