Whose heads will roll after the Democrats lose big in November?

[BrainGlutton]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

[And FWIW, the sleazy Democratic/Obama attacks on the Chamber of Commerce smack of desperation, IMO. See e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber-foreign-money-20101012,0,5879844.story.]

Page Not Found.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@BrainGlutton

Page Not Found.

Sorry, the last period and bracket didn’t belong. Try: Some Democrats uneasy with attacks on Chamber of Commerce

[See also, from the NYT.]

[DrDeth]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

@BrainGlutton

Page Not Found.

Sorry, the last period and bracket didn’t belong. Try: Some Democrats uneasy with attacks on Chamber of Commerce

[See also, from the NYT.]

Per your article “The Chamber of Commerce is on track to spend $75 million in this election cycle, mostly to benefit Republican candidates. Officials of the organization, while refusing to provide internal accounting details, have said that no foreign money is used in its political activities.”

So, the Chamber of Commerce should be immune to crititisms, even though it is spending HUGE amounts of cash to oppose one side in elections? Clearly they have taken the *political *stand to oppose the Democratic Party, thus, by doing so, they leave themselves open to political criticism.

[BrainGlutton]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

@BrainGlutton

Page Not Found.

Sorry, the last period and bracket didn’t belong. Try: Some Democrats uneasy with attacks on Chamber of Commerce

[See also, from the NYT.]

The LA Times story says, “Some Democrats on Capitol Hill worry that the White House is going too far in charging that the politically powerful business lobby may be using foreign money to fuel its election efforts. The charge ignites strong feelings among job-hungry voters. But Democrats are concerned that it may be overstated and could harm moderate Democrats in swing districts.” It does not say there is any reason to consider the charges unjustified.

[Shodan]

@DrDeth

Clearly they have taken the *political *stand to oppose the Democratic Party, thus, by doing so, they leave themselves open to political criticism.

So the charge that they are using foreign contributions is OK, because it is only a “political” accusation, correct?

Can you please explain the other kinds of unsubstantiated charges that are also OK? Keep in mind that I would like examples that would be OK no matter which party uses them.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

From the NYT article:

The Democrats have offered no evidence that the chamber is using foreign money to influence the elections.

David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, was asked Sunday by Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” on CBS if he had any evidence that the chamber was using secret foreign funds to influence the election.

“Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Mr. Axelrod replied. “The fact is that the chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem here.”

The Democratic committee’s spokesman, Hari Sevugan, likewise offered no evidence and suggested it was up to the chamber to disprove the assertions. “Serious questions have been raised,” he said in an e-mail. “If they want to clear this up, they can open up their books.”

The chamber is hardly the only organization playing a role in the campaign that has international affiliations and gets money from foreign institutions. Among others are groups on the political left like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club.

From the LAT:

“The White House may reap the whirlwind,” said one top Democratic staffer. “What are we going to do next year if a Republican Congress is making baseless claims about President Obama? We’ll want the media to hold them accountable to the facts and the evidence.”

Anyway, my point here was that these types of tactics smack of desperation and not of confidence.

[Merijeek]

@E-Sabbath

I was surprised. I thought the House was lost. I think maybe the Republicans peaked too soon.

That’s not what Silver is saying, and while I know lots of people dislike his being seen as an Oracle, fact of the matter is he hasn’t crashed and burned so far.

As soon as he has a “THE math” moment I’ll disregard what he says. But so far he’s been pretty damned good.

-Joe

[E-Sabbath]

No, it’s not what Nate Silver is saying, but I’ve been watching Tannenbaum for a while. The man knows his numbers.

ElectoralVote

Do your own analysis.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

From the NYT article:

The Democrats have offered no evidence that the chamber is using foreign money to influence the elections.

I was under the impression that the original reporting (and logical evidence) was supplied by Think Progress. I don’t recall where I picked that up and so can’t cite it, but here’s a (necessarily sketchy) follow-up to the NYT and LATimes articles you cite: GRAPHIC: How The Chamber Gets Its Foreign Money (skip the intro, see the graphic and below).

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK, I read it. Still no evidence.

I don’t see why this is even debatable, since the Democrats apparently concede that there’s no evidence. They just believe that even in the absence of any evidence they can just suggest that unless someone else proves that their suggestions are true, everyone should just act as if they probably are. This is based on the quotes cited above.

[Shodan]

Look, it’s perfectly simple. Republicans make baseless charges because Republicans are nasty and evil. Democrats make baseless charges because it’s just political.

Regards,
Shodan

[Merijeek]

@E-Sabbath

No, it’s not what Nate Silver is saying, but I’ve been watching Tannenbaum for a while. The man knows his numbers.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Do your own analysis.

I meant to cut that quote short. Should have been agreeing that “the house is toast” while cutting off the “peaked too soon” part.

Wish it wasn’t so, but the Dems are gonna get reamed. I assume they’ll learn the wrong lesson from it.

-Joe

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

OK, I read it. Still no evidence.

First, a disclaimer: I’m not really following this story, which is why I said “I was under the impression that…” I don’t actually have a position on this one way or the other.

Second, I think you’re conflating “evidence” and “proof”. The evidence (again, as I understand it) is that all monies, including and especially foreign monies, go into the same account. This is obviously a problem; if you really need me to, I’ll spell it out further. Now, there’s no proof, of course, because the funds’ books aren’t open.

Third, I also hear similar charges leveled at, say, unions. I have no idea whether that’s correct. If it is, the unions should have to disclose (and suffer any resulting consequences) also.

Fourth, something juvenile, both post and riposte:

@Shodan

Look, it’s perfectly simple. Republicans make baseless charges because Republicans are nasty and evil. Democrats make baseless charges because it’s just political.

Whaaaaahhhh! Dey tink we nasty and ebil! Mommy!!!

[Frank]

@Shodan

Keep in mind that I would like examples that would be OK no matter which party uses them.

I’ve read your posts for years. I’m pleased to infer from this post that there are “political” accusations from the Republicans that you would not support. Hell if I can think what they are, though. I’ve never seen one.

[E-Sabbath]

@Merijeek

I meant to cut that quote short. Should have been agreeing that “the house is toast” while cutting off the “peaked too soon” part.

Wish it wasn’t so, but the Dems are gonna get reamed. I assume they’ll learn the wrong lesson from it.

-Joe

I think looking at the numbers in a week will be interesting. But… yeah, the Dems will learn the wrong lesson from it. They always do.

[BrainGlutton]

@Merijeek

@E-Sabbath

No, it’s not what Nate Silver is saying, but I’ve been watching Tannenbaum for a while. The man knows his numbers.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Do your own analysis.

I meant to cut that quote short. Should have been agreeing that “the house is toast” while cutting off the “peaked too soon” part.

Wish it wasn’t so, but the Dems are gonna get reamed. I assume they’ll learn the wrong lesson from it.

-Joe

I assume the Pubs will learn the wrong lesson from it.

As Michael Lind writes:

All of this is great news for American progressivism. In the last third of the 20th century, many liberals who supported New Deal economic policies defected to the right on the basis of the Cold War or the culture war. Now that the Cold War and the culture war are over, what remains is the class war. And in the class war, the libertarians are on the side of the classes.

Consider Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future.” As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, it would raise taxes on middle-class Americans while dramatically lowering them on the über-rich. Ryan would use a national value-added tax (a good idea) to replace income, capital gains and estate taxes (a terrible idea). He would privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with vouchers, and then allow inflation to eat away at the value of the vouchers. Oh, and despite his claims, his Rand-inspired redistribution of income upward to the virtuously selfish rich would not eliminate the deficit.

The media is building Ryan up as a serious thinker. Build him up even more, I say. Give him a Nobel Prize, like Obama’s. Make him the face of the Republican Party. Progressives should want Ryan and Paul and the Cato Institute to define the next American right. That will ensure its minority status for decades.

Richard Nixon, like Ike, was a modern Republican whose formula for a Republican majority was big government on behalf of the middle class plus a hawkish foreign policy and moderate social traditionalism. The neoconservative writer David Frum has argued that this is the only possible combination that can produce an enduring Republican majority. I agree, and it is therefore with delight that I observe the rise of radical libertarianism in the GOP.

True, thanks to the popular backlash against the bailouts and the unpopular healthcare bill, the Democrats will suffer losses in the midterm elections. The Randian right will claim that Republican gains in Congress are proof that the American people share their goal of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. They should be encouraged in that belief.

After all, the public has repeatedly rejected any attempts to privatize Social Security or slash Medicare benefits. Reagan denounced both entitlements, but as president he raised taxes to support Social Security and refused to touch Medicare. Under George W. Bush, a Republican Congress passed the Medicare drug benefit, which, for all its concessions to the pharma lobby, was the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law.

When Bush supported the partial privatization of Social Security, the proposal was so unpopular with the public that the Republican majority in Congress never allowed it to come to a vote. Bush touched the third rail of American politics – and was promptly electrocuted. Last but not least, one of the arguments that Republicans opportunistically used to mobilize popular opposition to the Democratic healthcare bill was the claim that it would lead to cuts in Medicare for the elderly.

AARP vs. the objectivists. That’s not a fight, it’s a massacre.

N.B.: The above analysis is expressly based on the assumption that the present RW insurgence is libertarian rather than social-conservative. That might not be true.

The common view that the Tea Party movement is a rebellious, libertarian threat not only to the Republican establishment but also to traditional Christian conservatives is upended by a new survey that shows a broad overlap between the religious right and voters who identify with the Tea Party.

For example, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans who consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement also consider themselves part of the “Christian conservative movement,” and among the more than 8 in 10 Tea Partiers who identify as Christian, nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

The biennial American Values Survey, released in Washington on Tuesday, was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and shows that two-thirds of Tea Partiers say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 45 percent say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex relationships. That is hardly the profile of a libertarian fringe and more closely reflects the Republican base.

[Shodan]

@Digital_Stimulus

Fourth, something juvenile, both post and riposte:

@Shodan

Look, it’s perfectly simple. Republicans make baseless charges because Republicans are nasty and evil. Democrats make baseless charges because it’s just political.

Whaaaaahhhh! Dey tink we nasty and ebil! Mommy!!!

Oh, I’m not complaining - just noting that you apparently believe this kind of baseless charge is OK, and that it is a perfectly valid form of political discourse to level an accusation and expect it to be believed without evidence.

And therefore, when you complain about it when the GOP does it, that your complaints can be dismissed as hypocritical.

Regards,
Shodan

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

I assume the Pubs will learn the wrong lesson from it.

When it comes to electoral victory, I’m not sure that the Pubs are learning the wrong lesson. A very bad result for the country, sure. But one for themselves? No necessarily. They’ll manage to co-opt the Millers and Angles just fine once they get in office.

Hell, the Democrats got the wrong message from VICTORY (I know! Let’s pre-compromise on everything, that’ll help!). They’ll learn the wrong one from defeat too.

-Joe

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Shodan

And therefore, when you complain about it when the GOP does it, that your complaints can be dismissed as hypocritical.

Evidently, irony is lost on you.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Digital_Stimulus

Second, I think you’re conflating “evidence” and “proof”.

That’s a technically valid gambit but one that’s also very open to abuse. Virtually anything can be construed as “evidence”. The murder victim was killed with a knife. Barak Obama owns a knife. Therefore there is “evidence” tying Barak Obama to the crime, and we can run ads implying that he is a murderer unless he allows a full investigation of his schedule and whereabouts on the murder night. Open the books!!!

Third, I also hear similar charges leveled at, say, unions. I have no idea whether that’s correct.

I’m curious as to why you apparently accept the charges are true when leveled at the COC, but make a point of saying that you have “no idea” whether these charges are true when leveled at unions (despite being reported in the NYT, in the linked article).

If it is, the unions should have to disclose (and suffer any resulting consequences) also.

That’s very nice, but not our issue here.

What do you think of someone politically allied with the unions and opposed to the COC, who makes sinister accusations against the COC but ignores the fact that the unions do the same thing?