So then no cite for Obama saying that his vote was “stupid and irrational”? Or anything even close to that?
But that’s not the question at hand. The issue was not raised in connection with the Democrats being more obstructionist. It was raised in an attempt to prove that the Republicans have more crazies, and evidence was cited in the form of support - from one congresswoman - for a vote which Obama himself cast as senator.
Obama himself said the reason he changed his view is the result of him becoming president. It’s inconsistent to call other non-presidents crazy - and use that as proof of just how wacked out and crazy those Republican loonies really are - when a guy enough in the mainstream of the Democratic party to get elected took the same position as that.
And that’s really all you need to know about this issue. We do it it’s normal, the other guys do it it’s crazy. All these claims by partisans that their side is the normal ones and the other side are the crazy ones are completely worthless.
Oh, get serious. Go ahead and put votes on the floor to do just that and see how you do. Red staters who have been sucking at the USDA teat for generations would dunk you in a barrel of tar and dump feathers on you.
I don’t think that’s the claim. I think the claim is “both sides are really screwed up, but right now, one is way, way worse”.
You mean Obama is a politician who sometimes says dishonest things and makes mistakes, and not the perfect Messiah granted by God to lead us all to the promise lands? But how will I explain this to the children?
The trouble is, Democrats have not used the debt ceiling as a political hostage and Republicans have. Never have we seen Democrats in lockstep opposition to a debt ceiling increase.
That’s irrelevant to my point.
The point is that BPC used as evidence of Michelle Bachman’s craziness something that Obama himself supported when he was in her position.
It’s an illustration of how skewed people’s viewpoints are and thus how ridiculous it is to think it can be objectively settled.
Don’t be silly.
Terr’s point is that Obama regretting it at exactly the point when it became convenient for him to do so is not an indication of any sort of maturity or responsibility on his part, as is being spun here.
It’s possible, but since he’s correct on the merits in this instance, it’s also possible that he sincerely regrets it and believes it was a stupid political vote.
Further, there really is a difference between a protest vote that one knows will fail and a vote meant to default on US debt that one knows may succeed.
You can believe what you want, but it’s no more than belief.
And for that price, it’s possible that if Bachman would have been elected POTUS, she would also have sincerely regretted it and believed it was a stupid vote.
Bottom line is that there’s no difference in this regard other than what you want to believe.
That’s not true.
It was not intended for the US to default. The idea was to force concessions from the other side.
It did damage to US credit. Further, it was a completely predictable failure in terms of its political goals. That vs a ‘protest vote’ are two different things.
F-P, are you ignoring the many other instances cited of GOP ‘craziness’ on purpose? Is it just not that much fun for you to ever actually agree with liberal Dopers?
The place to do that is in the budget process. Since a bipartisan Congress approved the spending that led to a need for a debt ceiling hike, why is it that one party should be demanding concessions from the other? How is this different from your garden variety pirate?
The “concessions” the Republicans hoped to force, as you put it, were only one in number: Repeal Obamacare. That was not a realistic possibility, or even a defensible one following the debate and vote, but forcing a default *was *one, and the lowered credit rating and higher interest rates we now pay were real and remain with us still.
Demonstrably untrue. Go to Interest Rate Statistics | U.S. Department of the Treasury and play with the graph. Show me the “higher interest rates we now pay”.
Oh, you’re right, the downgrade was reversed- the real damage was only temporary.
You’re welcome to that “win”.
I’ve explained this before. Pay close attention this time.
I don’t think you’re right in your claims about the GOP’s relative craziness. But I don’t think it lends itself to proof or disproof. So I don’t intend to argue this. And that’s not what I’m arguing here.
My point here is not to refute a specific claim about Republicans being crazy, such that you might then point to other instances. My point is to support my position, which is that these matters are hopelessly subjective. And I’m illustrating that by pointing to a specific and glaring example of people calling something crazy when it’s the other guy and bobbing and weaving this way and that way to try to explain it away when it’s their guy.
Again: this is not about whether in fact Republicans are crazier than Democrats or not. It’s about whether that very question is possible to discuss in this environment and with this crowd.
But you’re also ignoring a lot of other claims that don’t appear to be subjective, or at least are as un-subjective as anything in politics can be.
Is it possible to discuss this topic in any environment, and with any crowd? Is this topic different in this way than the myriad of other topics discussed in Great Debates? Do you believe that the Straight Dope is less able to discuss certain topics (or any topics) than the public at large, or than some other forum?
And what’s wrong with intensely subjective discussions, anyway?
Bah. It’s another way to say “Both sides do it” without having to back it up.
I should also have mentioned the sequester, which was *intended *after the *first *GOP shutdown to be a doomsday device that even the crazies wouldn’t be crazy enough to actually implement, is more real damage that remains with us.
Because my position does not involve playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the USA, nor a complete failure to understand what the debt ceiling is and how it works.
I’d say “I rest my case” again, but that would be both mean and repeating myself. Yes, let’s eliminate multiple government organizations that fulfill important roles. Let’s eliminate enormous fraud - fraud so big we apparently missed it. You forgot the EPA, by the way.
Of course, what we’re talking about is parties. Not individuals. Obama voting against the debt ceiling increase was stupid. He himself admits it. So what’s the difference between that and Bachmann? Oh right. This happened, this didn’t.
But you know what? You have a point. Let’s scratch that from the list. How 'bout that next item - “Climate Change is a hoax”. Promoted by, among others, Senator John Inhofe, and over half the republican congressional caucus. Let’s see a left-wing equivalent to that.
I’ll wait.