October 29, 2009

Kurtz: Joe Lieberman, an Elected Senator Charged with Voting His Judgment and His Constituency's Will as Their Representative, Is "Holding Democracy Hostage" by Refusing to Vote for ObamaCare
— Ace

Yeah. As Allah noted, he didn't expect that Joe Lieberman would get the Marvelous Maverick treatment from the press that Olympia Snowe did.

But it turns out it's worse than that. Not only is Joe Lieberman getting credit as a independent-minded, um, independent, he actually stands accused by Howard Kurtz today of "holding democracy hostage."

Democracy = marching in lockstep with Obama. The debate is over. The vote must be taken before the bill is written.

Holding Democracy Hostage by participating in the democratic process.

We've come a long way from "dissent is the highest form of patriotism," haven't we? We're now "holding democracy hostage" by engaging in it.

Over at Newsweek, Anna Quindlen is having the same anger that democracy is getting in democracy's way.

This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system, a nation built on revolution, then engineered so the revolutionary can rarely take hold.

Checks and balances: that's how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary. And it's also meant to safeguard the rights of the individual...But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't.

Neither Kurtz nor Quindlen was bothered by the Democrats' "holding of democracy hostage" by filibustering so many of Bush's judicial picks, of course.

But now: America has been kidnapped. Be on the look out for cute tyke wearing red, white, and blue.

Democracy Held Hostage: Day One of the Crisis

Police have released a sketch of the suspected kidnapper... is 6'2" and has "dissent-ish" cast to his face

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (134)
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

1
Howie Kurtz is stuck on Stupid.

Posted by: Tweet Verbal at October 29, 2009 09:54 AM (9X3KM)

2 This is the sort of thing that would make me want to help Joe get re-elected.  I don't agree with everything he does or thinks, but file this under "could be a lot worse", and kudos for ruffling the fascist feathers.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 29, 2009 09:55 AM (5/yRG)

3 Joe should consider this a badge of honor. When the Post throws flak at you, you're over the target.

Posted by: joncelli at October 29, 2009 09:57 AM (RD7QR)

4 I want fifteen million dollars, a Caribbean island, five nubile chicks and a Gulfstream G650 or I start sending you parts in the mail!

Posted by: Joe Liebermann at October 29, 2009 09:57 AM (Do9Eu)

5
It's not like the Democrats or the Obama admin have a history of being right...on anything. Or even a track record of their policies improving the welfare and security of the American people.

Posted by: Tweet Verbal at October 29, 2009 09:57 AM (9X3KM)

6 I wish I could hold democracy hostage.  I don't think the Obama administration would pay too much to get it back though.

Posted by: kefka at October 29, 2009 09:58 AM (n1uMU)

7 I wonder who sends out the talking points and gives instruction to the attack dogs?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 29, 2009 09:58 AM (TfW4T)

8 This whole democracy/republic and voting thing is vastly overrated.  Can't we please just skip all the prelims and go straight to a dictatorship?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 29, 2009 09:59 AM (HUGgZ)

9 We have always been at war with EastAsia and dissent has always been the highest form of treason. 

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 09:59 AM (NgoAe)

10 "Democracy" means "doing what the Democratic Party wants".  I mean, they're practically the same word!

Posted by: Howlin' Howie Kurtz at October 29, 2009 09:59 AM (p05LM)

11 Obama should send Joe a couple clunksers. That should do the trick.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 29, 2009 09:59 AM (muUqs)

12

Yeah, I'm his hostage.  But I'm developing Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by: Democracy at October 29, 2009 10:00 AM (FkKjr)

13

Was he one of the gonads screeching about how the press should show the flag draped coffins when Bush was pres?

Not hearing that so much now. Somehow, its not as pressing an issue.

Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2009 10:00 AM (waaUg)

14 ...and they (Dana Milbanks specifically ) called Jim Inhofe a flat-earther too.

You know you're right when the only thing your opposition can do is resort to ad-hominem attacks.

Posted by: taylork at October 29, 2009 10:01 AM (4jZ56)

15 Proud to say I crossed party lines and voted for Joe. O would sell Israel for sack of dirty fingernails.

Posted by: Winston at October 29, 2009 10:01 AM (FggW0)

16 8 I wonder who sends out the talking points and gives instruction to the attack dogs?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 29, 2009 02:58 PM (TfW4T)

I'll take John Podesta and the Center for American Progress for $500, Alex.

Posted by: RushBabe at October 29, 2009 10:01 AM (LKkE8)

17 Let's take up a collection for swords for all these leftards to fall on when Zero care finally stops circling the pot and takes a long spinning drop through the commode.

Posted by: maddogg at October 29, 2009 10:02 AM (OlN4e)

18 Shouldn't any post about Kurtz be slugged...Hack Liberal Writes Column Parroting Liberal Line?

The guy is a media critic and he misses the story...the difference in media coverage  between "maverick" Republicans and "traitorous" liberals.

At least Kurtz comes by his reputation as lickspittle liberal the old fashioned way...kissing the ass of liberals.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 10:02 AM (ur6Ar)

19 A lot of these media types have got to have great health insurance working at some of those larger media companies.  Have they really thought this one through? 

Even with the upper crust liberals there was always the rule that government programs are good as long as they don't affect me.  Seems to me they have their heads buried in the sand and don't see the cause and effect of this passing.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 10:03 AM (NgoAe)

20 ...and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary.

So what she's telling me is that checks and balances are still working. Good to know.

Posted by: taylork at October 29, 2009 10:03 AM (4jZ56)

21 Is Anna Quindlen still acting?

Posted by: Dr. Spank at October 29, 2009 10:03 AM (muUqs)

22 I'm going to start drawing up plans for the death camps.  Kurtz and company are going to need some ummm....facilities to deal with all these anti-revolutionary types who won't fall into line, right?

If I play my cards right, I could build an industrial empire out of eliminating enemies of the junta.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 29, 2009 10:03 AM (HUGgZ)

23

But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't.

Does she mean the all out war the Dems waged against George Bush?

Posted by: TheQuietman at October 29, 2009 10:04 AM (1Jaio)

24 But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't. For "big stuff" read: "socializing the country." And I see this as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: joncelli at October 29, 2009 10:04 AM (RD7QR)

25 Does she mean the all out war the Dems waged against George Bush?

That was freedom fighting, read your liberal playbook.

Posted by: taylork at October 29, 2009 10:05 AM (4jZ56)

26 "I'll take John Podesta and the Center for American Progress for $500, Alex."

Hell I'd be happy to have just a single buck, Alex.

Posted by: Wolf Blitzer at October 29, 2009 10:05 AM (NgoAe)

27

This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system

Translation:  This is a president that wants to destroy capitalism, but is saddled with the stupid fucking Constitution, unlike my hero, Mao.

Posted by: Truman North at October 29, 2009 10:05 AM (e8YaH)

28

Posted by: unknown jane at October 29, 2009 02:55 PM (5/yRG)

Apologies if I pissed you off in that other thread.  The way I phrased my opinion did come off a bit harsh.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:06 AM (5aa4z)

29 You know, when you die, some folks call it going to your eternal rest. I'd almost be willing to bet though that good ol' George, Tom and John are getting awfully tired what with all of the rolling over that's going on in their graves.

Posted by: teej at October 29, 2009 10:06 AM (QdUKm)

30

For 8 long years it was OK for Democraps to require 60 votes to even get a floor vote for a Bush nominee for court. But it is “against Democracy” for a nominal Democrat to side with the Republicans in doing the same thing.

 

Just one more of the “what if Republicans” going in the now library of what if statements and items of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Vic at October 29, 2009 10:06 AM (CDUiN)

31

The word "democracy" has lost all meaning, whatsoever.  It used to stand for a crappy system of governance that left a nation vulnerable to the whims of the majority - for which our Founders rightly despised it - but has since morphed into a meaningless utterance that has some strained tie to the minor use of democratic processes in order to fill certain positions in a restricted and limited Constitutional government.  Of course, our federal government has since dispensed with all Constitutional restraints on its power, returning it to a state of nature and rendering it the feral government we now have, and the word "democracy" has been relegated to the function usually assigned to "f#ck" in conversation - without any actual meaning but used only to express a vague emotion or give diffuse emphasis.

It would be nice if these yahoos with cameras and pens in the lame stream media would have the word "democracy" struck  from their vocabularies and be given crash courses on the definition of "constitutional republic".  But, if they ever learned that, they might realize that most of what Congress has done in the last year has been wholly and completely un-Constitutional.  The horror.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 10:06 AM (A46hP)

32 Be on the look out for cute tyke wearing red, white, and blue.

And, at age 233, assumed to be in Depends.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:07 AM (5aa4z)

33 Anna Quindlen, wow, haven't heard from that lefty loudmouth in years.Nice to see she's still a feminist-fascist of the first order. Go buy some new batteries honey , you'll feel better.

Posted by: jjshaka at October 29, 2009 10:08 AM (KwoeU)

34

17  O would sell Israel for sack of dirty fingernails.

Or, in the case of Eastern Europe, absolutely nothing.

Posted by: Truman North at October 29, 2009 10:08 AM (e8YaH)

35 most of what Congress has done in the last year has been wholly and completely un-Constitutional.

Are you serious?

I AM THE LAW!

Posted by: Nancy "Dredd" Pelosi at October 29, 2009 10:09 AM (Do9Eu)

36

poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washingto

Why is she calling for violence? The rats are in charge.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at October 29, 2009 10:09 AM (dQdrY)

37 O would sell Israel for sack of dirty fingernails. Or, in the case of Eastern Europe, absolutely nothing. Posted by: Truman North at October 29, 2009 03:08 PM (e8YaH) Should a shrewd negotiator ha?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 29, 2009 10:09 AM (TfW4T)

38 17 -- He'd ask that high a price?

Posted by: unknown jane holding big bag of fingernail clippings at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (5/yRG)

39 So I yell at Mrs. Kurtz "How dare you cheat on me! Does our marriage mean nothing to you?" And she says "What are you talking about?"

Incredulous, I proceeded. "I can see you banging some ugly dude right now! Right while you're talking to me!"

And she said "Right... that's you. I'm having sex with you right now. Isn't that how this is suppose to work?"

So I shot back: "You're holding the sanctity of our marriage hostage!"

And she grabbed her bag, a set of my favorite assless chaps and headed out the door screaming "Not anymore I'm not!"

Posted by: Howard Kurtz at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (PonvG)

40

"But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't."

 

Hurray for gridlock, gridlock is good!

Every time that congress passes a law, someone loses a liberty.

Posted by: Max Entropy at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (uuZjB)

41 Arrg  Media cocksucking, it burns ussss.

Posted by: toby928 at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (PD1tk)

42

Translation:  This is a president that wants to destroy capitalism freedom, but is saddled with the stupid fucking Constitution, unlike my hero, Mao.

FIFY Truman

Posted by: teej at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (QdUKm)

43 Joe will come around, he's a trooper.  Besides, we know where he lives, and he knows we know where he lives. 

Posted by: Rahm Emmanuel at October 29, 2009 10:10 AM (HUGgZ)

44 Should a shrewd negotiator ha? I guess that would depend on whether the joke was funny. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Posted by: joncelli at October 29, 2009 10:11 AM (RD7QR)

45 #34 The media is damn well aware that what Congress and Obama is doing is unconstitutional.  They consider it necessary to progress the country to "where it needs to go".  They think that they will still have control over public opinion and a cushy life when we reach their "utopia".  They are in for the shock of their life if their "utopia" ever comes into existence.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 10:11 AM (NgoAe)

46 what a dick

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 29, 2009 10:11 AM (QxSug)

47 Don't forget Thomas Friedmans lament about the Chinese governments ability to Get It Done.

Posted by: Pablo Honey at October 29, 2009 10:11 AM (jxHlf)

48 Like the left/Dems care about democracy. That was just a smoke screen they used during the Bush years. All they care about is power and holding on to it. They hate that we're a democratic republic unless it goes in their favor.

Posted by: wherestherum at October 29, 2009 10:12 AM (GZnia)

49 Anna Quindlen is having the same anger that democracy is getting in democracy's socialism's way.

FIFY

Posted by: Dr. Do-it-yourself at October 29, 2009 10:12 AM (DIYmd)

50 Oh, and the Left/Dems don't like that democracy goes both ways.

Posted by: wherestherum at October 29, 2009 10:12 AM (GZnia)

51 Neither Kurtz nor Quindlen was bothered by the Democrats' "holding of democracy hostage" by filibustering so many of Bush's judicial picks, of course.

Nor did they seem to care when the Democrats CHEERED their "holding of democracy hostage" by blocking Dubya's attempts to reform Social Security.

Nor did they seem to care of the Democrats' "holding of democracy hostage" by blocking Dubya's and the GOP's attemps to reform Fannie/Freddie.

Posted by: Michael in MI at October 29, 2009 10:12 AM (ObTcs)

52 I just sent this email to Mr. Kurtz:

<ul>In your 10/15/9 piece referencing Sen. Snowe's lukewarm support for Obamacare, you wrote, "Imagine the coverage a Democratic senator would have gotten by breaking with his party to help George Bush pass his Social Security plan. No one hailed Joe Lieberman (yes, he's an independent, but he caucuses with the Dems) for turning against Obama on the Baucus bill."


Today, you answer that question by suggesting that Sen. Lieberman is "Holding democracy hostage."


I guess it's not hard to imagine after all, is it Howard?You are the media lynch mob you've been waiting for!


I guess "democracy" now means doing whatever the Democratic leadership tells you to do.Voting your conscience and representing your constituents is so antiquated and, dare I say, originalist.


Now, go grab your torches and pitchforks!We must defend the leftward cause!Democracy be damned!</ul>


Posted by: CC at October 29, 2009 10:13 AM (Y9fG5)

53 Come on folks, my train was late twice last week. Let's get with the pogromprogram.

Posted by: mr.frakypants at October 29, 2009 10:13 AM (PonvG)

54 Joe Lieberman is a traitor.

Posted by: Jim Jeffords at October 29, 2009 10:13 AM (yUybe)

55

Checks and balances: that's how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary.

Raise your hand if you think the Founders were just engaging in a theoretical exercise.

Holy crap, these pople are full of themselves.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 29, 2009 10:13 AM (B+qrE)

56 I wonder who sends out the talking points and gives instruction to the attack dogs?

*beep beep* Who is George Soros and Media Matters?

Posted by: wherestherum at October 29, 2009 10:14 AM (GZnia)

57 They think that they will still have control over public opinion and a cushy life when we reach their "utopia".

The "useful idiots" are always the first up against the wall when the hardcore gets control.  Ask Maurice Bishop, he understands it now...of course he got put up against a wall and machine gunned down, so he may not be too talkative these days.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 29, 2009 10:15 AM (HUGgZ)

58 Buy my product?

Posted by: That Computer Professor guy at October 29, 2009 10:15 AM (e8YaH)

59

31-- No worries Herr, chillax baby.  I did get a bit miffed (as you brought up parallels to what have to be my least favorite group of people on the planet -- I hate enviro-chippies with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns), but it was over with as quickly as it happened.  I don't get too wound up over internet arguements -- they're just arguements -- even if I like to mix it up.  Now, if someone was to come to my house and get up in my face...kick my dog; then I might get a bit offended (and would likely have to gut them like a catfish).

 

But you dont' seem the type to do that sort of thing, so it's cool.

Posted by: unknown jane holding big bag of fingernail clippings at October 29, 2009 10:16 AM (5/yRG)

60 that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't.

That's a feature lady, you don't even have to pay extra for it. The Founders threw it in for free!

Posted by: Rocks at October 29, 2009 10:16 AM (Q1lie)

61 "But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't." I assume she's referring to Bush's attempts to save Social Security....

Posted by: notropis at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (Braqx)

62 Kurtz/Quindlen = Jacobins

Watch your back Joe.

It's probably time to send Kurtz and Quindlen a few copies of "How Democracies Perish" by Revel(yet another socialist that had "second thoughts").

Posted by: WTFCI at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (GtYrq)

63 it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary.

So, ... , it's working, right?

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (IoxPW)

64

55 I just sent this email to Mr. Kurtz:

 

THREAD WINNER

Posted by: Truman at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (e8YaH)

65

saddled with ,

well damn..

Posted by: ugh-willow at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (1kwr2)

66

By the way, what's the going rate on ransom for democracy?

One or two trillion?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 29, 2009 10:17 AM (B+qrE)

67

But you dont' seem the type to do that sort of thing, so it's cool.

Posted by: unknown jane holding big bag of fingernail clippings at October 29, 2009 03:16 PM (5/yRG)

Got a rabbit? 

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:18 AM (5aa4z)

68

(and would likely have to gut them like a catfish). -

Jane, you know how to gut a catfish? Will you marry me?

Posted by: teej at October 29, 2009 10:19 AM (c459z)

69

By the way, what's the going rate on ransom for democracy?

One or two trillion?

 

ROFLMFAO!  Keep adding them zeroes!

Posted by: The smart guys from Goldman-Sachs at October 29, 2009 10:19 AM (e8YaH)

70 ...and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary.

Despotic executive...check.  Plus bonus commissars!
wild-eyed legislature...check.
overweening judiciary........check.

The sad part is when she wrote that, she didn't realize it was all true.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 29, 2009 10:20 AM (NtiET)

71 Referring to Kurtz, not Lieberman, mind you

Posted by: TMF at October 29, 2009 10:21 AM (waaUg)

72 query: how long before 'holding democracy hostage' morphs into 'once molested small children' or 'took kickbacks' or 'ran a meth lab' or....

Posted by: Cool Money Grip at October 29, 2009 10:21 AM (KOkrW)

73 The thing is, Obama could of had health care reform easy. Bring in 5-10 Republicans, given them tort reform, give them portability and they would have gone along with a water down version of a public option, as long as you called it a cooperative. Pre-existing condition exclusion - would have been gone.  It was right there. But Obama could not stop voting present.

I keep seeing analysis about how Obama would sign something, anything as long as he could call it health-care reform.

This isn't true in the slightest. He doesn't want a deal. He's not player in the traditional sense. He's not a horsetrader, he's an agitator, a true believer. Socialized medicine is one of his primary policy targets; shit, it might even be the big one. He's not gunning for communism so that we will compromise on something watered-down.

This is why we don't see a plan coming from him, and yet Pelosi and Reid have total hard-ons for the public option: they are the Plausible Deniability Sword of Obama. They know this is the goal, and they're gonna try like hell to make it happen for their masters.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at October 29, 2009 10:21 AM (yUybe)

74 just shut up and sign the damn bill, subjects citizens.

Posted by: joeindc44 at October 29, 2009 10:21 AM (QxSug)

75 Can I haz bumper sticker back?

Posted by: Ned Lamont at October 29, 2009 10:21 AM (kSfPT)

76 Kurtz is brain dead fool and can stick it in his ear or the orifice of his choice. These whiny, dumb ass liberals get childish when they don't get their way.

Posted by: rplat at October 29, 2009 10:22 AM (G1ArL)

77 I keep seeing analysis about how Obama would sign something, anything as long as he could call it health-care reform.

This isn't true in the slightest. He doesn't want a deal. He's not player in the traditional sense. He's not a horsetrader, he's an agitator, a true believer.

Bingo! Spot On! Fuckin' Ay!  [Insert idiomatic agreement exclamation here].

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:24 AM (5aa4z)

78

how long before 'holding democracy hostage' morphs into 'once molested small children' or 'took kickbacks' or 'ran a meth lab' or....

At the rate these guys are going, that list will pretty accurately describe next Monday's Cabinet meeting...

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at October 29, 2009 10:24 AM (B+qrE)

79
Police have released a sketch of the suspected kidnapper... is 6'2" and has "dissent-ish" cast to his face

And he's a joooooooooooo, shhhh!.

Posted by: Rocks at October 29, 2009 10:24 AM (Q1lie)

80
a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary.

She didn't catch her subconscious sneaking out and writing the truth there, did she?  Damn that cognitive dissonance, it's so pesky sometimes.

Posted by: Dang Straights at October 29, 2009 10:24 AM (Haq+B)

81 Okay Jane, I'll take that as a no. That's okay. I always just skin 'em, fillet 'em and bury what's left where there's gonna be a tomato or pepper plant anyway. No need to mess with the guts.

Posted by: teej at October 29, 2009 10:25 AM (c459z)

82 bury what's left where there's gonna be a tomato or pepper plant anyway.

Fortuitously, carp spawn right about garden planting time here.  Bowfishing and squash planting is my April.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:27 AM (5aa4z)

83 Can I borrow Maddow's Middle Finger?

Posted by: Anna Quindlen at October 29, 2009 10:27 AM (kn+jW)

84 I didn't realise we still had checks and balances after last november's election. Individual self-interest of congress critters seems the only speed bump in their way.

Posted by: Johnathan E. at October 29, 2009 10:29 AM (dQdrY)

85

"Checks and balances: that's how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary."

Prescisely.  Which is what we have right now.  So, what was your point, Anna?

Posted by: PalinFan at October 29, 2009 10:30 AM (fcfPV)

86 They think that they will still have control over public opinion and a cushy life when we reach their "utopia".  They are in for the shock of their life if their "utopia" ever comes into existence.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 03:11 PM (NgoAe)

Yep.  Lenin's useful idiots have gotten more useful and much more idiotic.  They haven't a clue as to what they are really pushing this nation towards.  On the bright side, they'll be among the first of the purges.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 10:30 AM (A46hP)

87
*beep beep* Who is George Soros and Media Matters?

Posted by: wherestherum at October 29, 2009 03:14 PM (GZnia)


Big George's latest project (from The Corner):

Now financier George Soros is announcing a $50 million effort to speed things along. This week Soros is gathering some of the leading practitioners of the market-skeptic school, who were marginalized during the era of "free-market fundamentalism," among them Nobelists Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Sir James Mirrlees. He's also creating an "Institute for New Economic Thinking" to make research grants, convene symposiums, and establish a journal, all in an effort to take back the economics profession from the champions of free-market zealotry who have dominated it for decades, and to correct the failures of decades of market deregulation. Soros hopes matching funds will bring the total endowment up to $200 million. "Economics has failed not only to predict and explain what happened but has also failed to protect society," says Robert Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who will direct the new institute. "That's what the crisis revealed. The paradigm has failed. There is no guidance."

Posted by: The Big Whoop at October 29, 2009 10:30 AM (xxgag)

88 I blame Bush

Posted by: Todd ( just a guy) at October 29, 2009 10:31 AM (LLOGQ)

89 Polic also report suspect bears a stunning resemblance to Urkel.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at October 29, 2009 10:31 AM (cniXs)

90 No, no rabbits -- but I do know how to dress them and catfish, in fact all manner of things, as I'm from a farming and hunting family(although rabbit corpses kinda freak me out a bit, I leave them to my husband, which kinda answers Teej's question too -- plus, Teej, I'm way too old and cantankerous for you; you need to be chasing after the younger, sweeter gals).

Posted by: unknown jane holding big bag of fingernail clippings at October 29, 2009 10:32 AM (5/yRG)

91 "But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't."

It's still working!  I had my doubts.  Time for divided government again. It's no accident that happens over and over. 

Posted by: Beagle at October 29, 2009 10:32 AM (sOtz/)

92

Meanwhile, CNN's own Paul Begala says Libes is a "Traitor"

http://tinyurl.com/yznnnjp

Posted by: buzz at October 29, 2009 10:33 AM (kwhut)

93

The loss of the Republic started officially in 1803 when Marshall told the rest of the Republic that he was the sole decider of what the Constitution meant.

 

It accelerated when the individual States decided that owning property or paying taxes should not be a requirement to vote.

Posted by: Vic at October 29, 2009 10:34 AM (CDUiN)

94

I like it.  We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy - i.e. mob.  Anyone who pays for Howard's drivel should demand a refund.

Kurtz is German for short, right?  Do they have an expression for "a few bricks short of a load?" 

Posted by: MarkD at October 29, 2009 10:34 AM (MMy4A)

95 Individual self-interest of congress critters seems the only speed bump in their way.

That's going to be the beautiful thing.  Dems are going to get a severe wake-up call next week and for all Pelosi/Reid/Obama's bluster, the rank and file know what's coming.  And each will think there's something they can do to separate themselves from the leadership and save their seat.

Some are probably right on that, but I look forward to watching them flee the Left in every conceivable direction.

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 10:35 AM (IoxPW)

96

>>This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system, a nation built on revolution, then engineered so the revolutionary can rarely take hold.

Revolutions are supposed to be undertaken by people, not career politicians in Washington.

Posted by: Tushar at October 29, 2009 10:36 AM (KXhmI)

97 Over at Newsweek, Anna Quindlen...

St. Anna the Pious is still around? Holy crap, I did not know that. She was a sanctimonious liberal hypocrite 25 years ago, but I thought she had retired, or her tennis shoes had exploded, or something.

Posted by: OregonMuse at October 29, 2009 10:38 AM (eR37w)

98
WTF does this bimbo mean by "in theory"? I would say that our system of checks and balances has a 200 year record of working pretty well in the real world

Posted by: bulwark at October 29, 2009 10:39 AM (jvrmc)

99

The loss of the Republic started officially in 1803 when Marshall told the rest of the Republic that he was the sole decider of what the Constitution meant.

 

It accelerated when the individual States decided that owning property or paying taxes should not be a requirement to vote.


It ended when the majority of the citizens became illiterate.  My home schooled 8 year old was just informed she reads at a tenth grade level.  Great, right?  Uh, no.  Bullshit.  The problem is that tenth grade level is now what third grade level used to be.  We're a nation of blithering idiots.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 10:41 AM (5aa4z)

100 does make it sound she wants  the President  to start a revolution. against whom? the people?

Posted by: ugh-willow at October 29, 2009 10:41 AM (1kwr2)

101

So when Lieberman gets his head on straight, will those Bush-appointed judges get a vote for confirmation?

(With my apologies to anyone who already said this.)

Posted by: FireHorse at October 29, 2009 10:42 AM (Vl5GH)

102 103 -- Unfortunately no; in fact, she's become a bit of a required read for some humanities courses...blech.  I could never stand her logic or her rhetoric.  But it's fun to use her work (since it can be in the department syllabus guidelines) in a subversive way (as in subvert anything she says).

Posted by: unknown jane holding big bag of fingernail clippings at October 29, 2009 10:44 AM (5/yRG)

103 We're totally cool with that, Willow.

Posted by: The smart guys from Goldman-Sachs at October 29, 2009 10:47 AM (e8YaH)

104

I keep seeing analysis about how Obama would sign something, anything as long as he could call it health-care reform.

This isn't true in the slightest. He doesn't want a deal. He's not player in the traditional sense.

I agree 100%.

He's not a horsetrader, he's an agitator, a true believer. Socialized medicine is one of his primary policy targets; shit, it might even be the big one. He's not gunning for communism so that we will compromise on something watered-down.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at October 29, 2009 03:21 PM (yUybe)

I ahve to strongly disagree, here.  I don't believe The Precedent gives a shit about political ideology.  Sure, he likes marxism because he thinks it's the "cool" thing, but he's too dumb to understand anything about governmental structures, anyway.  The Precedent, to my mind, cares about nothing so much as exacting revenge on the US and the West.  He only wants to bring pain, suffering and humiliation to us, and that is what drives him.  He doesn't care what the health care system looks like in 5 years.  He just wants the US to be a smoldering ember.

That's how I've viewed The Precedent's motivations since the beginning (social and economic justice - i.e. revenge) and he has not done anything that has surprised me, except that he seems utterly shameless and impervious to the most amazing amounts of humiliation.  But, deep down, all he wants is to destroy us.  I can see no other thread running through his policies and actions.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 10:51 AM (A46hP)

105 Lieberman can't be 6'2". He's, you know, a Joo.

Posted by: runninrebel at October 29, 2009 10:53 AM (i3PJU)

106 Quindlan: "...Checks and balances: that's how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary."

Good Lord, this pea-brain has it all back asswards. This is what we have now and a revolution is needed to reverse the current circumstance. And this fool thinks the masses should revolt more to boost a despotic executive, wild-eyed lege, and overweening judiciary? I'd say she's come around to the conservative side if she's advocating a "revolution," but this not-so-crypto-Marxist is coming at it from exactly the wrong direction.

Amazing. To claim to understand her elementary studies in "checks and balances" and be so idiotic in the call for revolution. Yeah, Quindlan, I'd like to introduce you to the Founding Fathers. Founding Fathers, Quindlan. Don't mind her dunce cap. It's fused to her head and modern medicine just hasn't the technology to pry it off.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at October 29, 2009 10:53 AM (swuwV)

107

** "Can I borrow Maddow's Middle Finger?" **

What, and ruin her sex life forever?

Posted by: Bubba at October 29, 2009 11:00 AM (kYSVV)

108

** "Can I borrow Maddow's Middle Finger?" **

What, and ruin her sex life forever?

Posted by: Bubba at October 29, 2009 04:00 PM (kYSVV) The

The "Maddow's Middle Finger" thing just snuck up on me and gave me a cumulative case of "the willies".

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 29, 2009 11:03 AM (5aa4z)

109 110 -- I'd go so far as to say he doesn't even particularly care about wrecking the West.  He's just out to get himself some, and if the country should crumble in the process, oh well.  As long as he isn't blamed for it; then there's the ego thing -- it can never be about America, it has to be about him -- he wants a personality cult, not patriotic citizens, so in that regard America bugs him.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 29, 2009 11:11 AM (5/yRG)

110 But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't.

Ummmm....isn't that kind of the point? The Founders set up what they thought was a pretty good system that protected people and their freedoms and then set up safeguards against people screwing it up by doing "big stuff". Hello. Limited government anyone?? Sounds pretty smart to me.

Posted by: Mandy P. at October 29, 2009 11:18 AM (MK6Kx)

111 As long as he isn't blamed for it; then there's the ego thing -- it can never be about America, it has to be about him -- he wants a personality cult, not patriotic citizens, so in that regard America bugs him.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 29, 2009 04:11 PM (5/yRG)

I hear you, jane, but I think The Precedent most definitely wants "the blame".  He is looking to go down in history as person who took down the US.  He might also entertain fantasies that he will gain control of the rubble that is left, but I just don't see that motivating him.  As I have written before, I think he sees himself as the avenging angel of the third world, come to wreak destruction on the evil US.

I see his Afghanistan policy the same way.  I have been saying, since the start, that the dithering is the strategy.  All he wants to do is bleed our troops.  He will do everything he can to render them as vulnerable as possible, only giving the minimum amount of resources to just keep the bleeding going - which is why I predicted that he would finally come back and low-ball McChrystal's troop request, but only at the latest date possible.  And he'll put every impediment to actual troop transfers even after he has mouthed commitments.

We'll see, but I am thoroughly convinced that this thirst for revenge is what primarily motivates him.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 11:18 AM (A46hP)

112 8 I wonder who sends out the talking points and gives instruction to the attack dogs?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 29, 2009 02:58 PM (TfW4T)


Actually, they run a chat called Journolist. So a few of them State Media bigwigs talk with the Obama administration and get their talking points, and then they post them on the list and hammer out how they will cover them exactly. It is kind of like all those dark fantasies the left spun throughout the early 00s...only real.

Posted by: King Baracky Obamaba the First at October 29, 2009 11:21 AM (7BU4a)

113 Shorter Anne:  "And we'd enact everything for our Socialist paradise, if it weren't for that damned Constitution!!!111!!"

I fear this will only escalate.  Liberals were furious for years when they were out of power.  Now, they are furious to find that their current power isn't absolute.

Posted by: Techie at October 29, 2009 11:24 AM (cxW4X)

114

Ann Quindlen is my cockcover.

Whenever Kurtz is on his period.

Posted by: Big Dick Cheney at October 29, 2009 11:26 AM (VPwsO)

115 120 -- Ewww.

Posted by: unknown jane at October 29, 2009 11:40 AM (5/yRG)

116 Democracy is finished here.

Posted by: Joe Kennedy at October 29, 2009 11:48 AM (ikG+R)

117 If Connecticut voters wanted someone to support Obamacare, they should have voted for the Democtrat.

Posted by: OCBill at October 29, 2009 11:49 AM (WGXy4)

118 This wouldn't be such a problem for Democrats if they would be honest.  But they won't tell us what the bill actually says, they play games with the budgeting, and most of all, the "public option" is just a trojan horse.

It's their dishonesty that people who might even support their proposals rail against.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 29, 2009 11:57 AM (T0NGe)

119

Jane, the younger and sweeter comment was nice of ya but I'm an old, set in my ways curmudgeon myself. Just ask anyone. Hell, I even get on the highway and set the auto-cruise on the speed limit.

Posted by: teej at October 29, 2009 11:59 AM (c459z)

120 I can't believe Howard Kurtz has become such a douchebag.

Posted by: The Most Interesting Man In the World (rdb) at October 29, 2009 12:12 PM (piBto)

121 But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't.

Before the Democrats were elected to a majority in congress, there was of course no partisan disagreement, nor were any big projects blocked or paralyzed, that's what this bim is saying? Sure.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 29, 2009 12:18 PM (PQY7w)

122 They think that they will still have control over public opinion and a cushy life when we reach their "utopia".  They are in for the shock of their life if their "utopia" ever comes into existence.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 03:11 PM (NgoAe)

___________________

Concur.  Quindlen whines about how difficult it is to do anything "revolutionary" in Washington due to what she deems a "theoretical" government construct.  I have a feeling she'd be in for a pretty damn big shock if she was ever faced with an actual revolution in progress.  They tend to cause a lot of collateral damage and, historically speaking, people often end up in an even worse state than before it started because "revolutions" are always reactionary.  Those revolting rarely look to the long-term effects of how things will be run if they somehow win.  We still endured our own civil war despite the foresight and genius of the Founders, and we've actually been luckier than most.

It's been absolutely ridiculous that the media and the left are so worked up about getting healthcare "reform" passed without addressing the big picture--how is a country that is $50 trillion in debt across the board, with the govt. having nearly $150 trillion in debt and unfunded obligations, going to provide complete and total healthcare for an increasing number of people, along with all the other entitlement programs, in perpetuity?  The math says that it can't be done without making ourselves vassals to another country with less debt and fewer relative obligations. 

Dealing with this fact and accepting the reality of the situtation would cut off any further government spending on healthcare in an instant, which is why the left simply refuses to consider it in any debate.  Point this out to them and they completely ignore it, deflecting instead to lame emotional appeals in an attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

Posted by: David Axelrod's Combover at October 29, 2009 12:20 PM (/Pw+r)

123 "But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can't." - Anna Q. Yes, EXACTLY, Anna... Thank GOD. It's just like you wrote: "it is meant to guard against a despotic executive[Obama], a wild-eyed legislature [Pelosi - don't come more "wild-eyed" than that scary stare], an overweening judiciary...[Wise Latina Women - need I say more?] Thank GOD for Good Old Checks and Balances, keeping the Unbalanced (Liberals) in Check.

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 29, 2009 01:06 PM (QECjC)

124

I would just note that checks and balances for an unlimited federal government are relatively meaningless.  That comes down to just piecing up the tyranny.  It is limited government that is the most important point, and that is exactly what this feral government ignores as it expands to control everything in sight. 

One can survive concentrated power that is limited.  It isn't pretty, but it isn't tyranny, either.  It is the unrestricted, savage government - the feral government - that threatens all liberty and freedom.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 01:14 PM (A46hP)

125

Karl Rove must have written this.  It's essential message is that the genius of the American revolution and its framework for governance undercuts Obama's entire message of transformational change in American government.

If it's legit, then I've not read a more revealing passage into the psyche of liberal democrats under Obama yet.  Her thesis - as I understand it - is: America was born in the crucible of revolution but operates in a way that nips any erstwhile revolution (like a radical transformation of the way helath care is delivered) in the bud. 

She misses the import of her words.  The American revolution was explicitly not a traditional class-warfare kind of political revolution where the oppressed overthrew their oppressors. It was a cultural stand - by colonial subjects who were not really in so dire of economic straits - that sought and achieved an eradication of the notion that society is a body with well-to-do government elites as its head.  The whole idea was rooted in a fundamental belief that the people needed to be protected from the whims of a governing elite by a system of constraint - hence checks and balances in government. 

That she rues for a system where her preferred ideology can "revolutionize" more easily belies any commitment she might make to proper governance under the American constitution.  She is revelaed for what she is: a "wild-eyed" revolutionary bent on imposing her view of the good society in utter disregard for the principles on which America was founded. 

I would recommend to her Edmund Burke's treatise on teh French Revolution.  How has American journalism - and much blame lies in the education system - come to such a shallow depth?

Posted by: Will at October 29, 2009 02:28 PM (kS4rR)

126 "...in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary."

"In theory"? Those aren't theories--they're facts.

Posted by: Noel at October 29, 2009 05:17 PM (Hh13R)

127 Joe's ego must be riding high right now to know he now has all the power he does. I guess we should call him "Super Joe" now to fit his powers. How many other powers does he have he doesn't know about yet, or hasn't used them yet? Hurray for "Super Joe."

Posted by: Smorgasbord at October 29, 2009 08:27 PM (YtZZd)

128 "I keep seeing analysis about how Obama would sign something, anything as long as he could call it health-care reform."

[Hands BHO a nearly-blank sheet of paper, it has "Health Care Reform" written across the top in Sharpie. Also gives him a giant red crayon]
Here, smart guy, sign that. Happy now?

Posted by: Hurricane567 at October 29, 2009 10:05 PM (Dzccr)

129 Where was Kurtz when the dems were filibustering Bush's judicial nominations?

Posted by: RTH615 at October 30, 2009 08:33 AM (0KuJp)

130 Oops, yeah.  I see you mentioned that.  My outrage is on hair trigger today.

Posted by: RTH615 at October 30, 2009 08:35 AM (0KuJp)

131 king bedding prefer to wear synthetic Bedding Sets king size bedding discount prices.Things You Are.

Posted by: bedding ensembles at February 26, 2011 09:47 AM (k2oVt)

132 It's all about matching tiffany co jewelry , and creating the best combination of colors for one's general dressing. It will help to buy what you need simpler, and you will be pleased that you just added some Tiffany diamond jewelry in your present rings selection.

Posted by: herman198 at March 10, 2011 01:09 AM (tnRWG)

133 Well done, thak you for your great posts, i learned more from here.

Posted by: ipod to mac at April 14, 2011 07:19 AM (ecKmC)

134 For those of you who are purchasing ebridalgowns,we realize that this is one of the most important purchasing decisions you will make.

Posted by: ebridalgowns at June 13, 2011 08:30 PM (SuY4Y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
162kb generated in CPU 0.15, elapsed 1.2599 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.147 seconds, 370 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.