• on a comment on Bayh & '12 & '16 over 4 years ago

    Testing.

  • The duty he owed the ethical standard to was the public.

     

    You can try to change subject to the journal as much as you want.

    It is typical DC bullshitting to think that everyone will ignore that you hiding the ball.

    I am not fooled by this talking point that you and the rest are peddiling on line. 

    You may get away with it in the press since they want this bill too. But, please, you are not convincing anyone with half a brain with this bullshit. 

    His duty to the public when he say wrote the Washington Post Op Ed last month was to disclose his financial relationship with the administration, and yes, working for the HHS given the high level of advocacy he was doing should have been disclosed.

    May I just add each time you play this game, this sort of thing damages the president image. In the short run, the general public does not notices these sort of things, but over time, more and more people pick up on it. So play your games, you may even win this time, but overtime, you are hurting him with this crap. 

     

     

  • The duty he owed the ethical standard to was the public.

     

    You can try to change subject to the journal as much as you want.

    It is typical DC bullshitting to think that everyone will ignore that you hiding the ball.

    I am not fooled by this talking point that you and the rest are peddiling on line. 

    You may get away with it in the press since they want this bill too. But, please, you are not convincing anyone with half a brain with this bullshit. 

    His duty to the public when he say wrote the Washington Post Op Ed last month was to disclose his financial relationship with the administration, and yes, working for the HHS given the high level of advocacy he was doing should have been disclosed.

    May I just add each time you play this game, this sort of thing damages the president image. In the short run, the general public does not notices these sort of things, but over time, more and more people pick up on it. So play your games, you may even win this time, but overtime, you are hurting him with this crap. 

     

     

  • It takes less than a second to realize that he has been discussing the issues during the period that he was receiving money. Trying to parse by focusing on academic journal ethics is not going to work. 

  • comment on a post Jon Gruber doesn't understand transparency over 4 years ago

    a) Did the White House know about Grubber's financial arrangement with the HHS?

    b) What has the White House's reaction been to the story?

    c) What has been the reaction of the defenders of the president who see him as unlike any other presidency before him?

  • comment on a post Emanuel, Salazar to leave Administration? (Updated) over 4 years ago

    Seriously replace them with progressives

  • "  A primary challenge by him will certainly help Gillibrand secure that liberal base she's been struggling with"

     

    How do you make an unacceptable choice for liberals more acceptable? by turnign them into the lesser of two evils. 

  • It is not so much that Ford is bad (he is) but that you think he has a snow balls chance of winning NY (he doesn't).

  • The wonk part is based on Reaganomics, which as we all know has worked out well for us in the past.

  • I see 4-5. Delaware and Colorado, I don't think will happen for the GOP. 

  • Reid is toast.

  • this seat is now not a pick up for the GOP. They only had a shot with Dodd.

  • comment on a post Chris Dodd Set to Retire Tomorrow over 4 years ago

    I think someone mentioned that as a serious possibility, and I would imagine this would increase the chance of an independent run. I think, if that happens, this could be an interesting test of my theory that a third party could win in some of the elections this year. 

  • PS I have no idea why the new system eliminated by paragraphs. 

  • I know when it is time to stop basing your policies on theory. I am moderate. A real one. Not the fictional one that conservatives in DC try to brand as centrism to the American public. I look at empirically what is happening with the application of a theory. It is on this front that neoliberalism fails. In science, when a theory fails we say that means that the theory in wrong. In politics, when an idealogue sees their theory fail, they argue it means they didn't do it right the first time because ideologues can't ever see their theory as the problem. Despite your claims otherwise, that's why the White House and you are ideologues rather than pragmatists. You are simply ignoring the evidence on a policy level in terms of what it is saying. As Naked Capitalist recently wrote of the WH- they are "cognitively captured." The problem is neoliberalism is not just flawed. It has been shown to be a fatality flawed ideological belief just like neoconservatism and communism. I was once a neoliberal. But the evidence is coming it. It is a failed ideological perspective. The problem is that it does not stand the test of empiricism. I am not going to go through all the details of that here, but the underlying assumptions are flawed. I can give quick examples such as neoliberals in the Senate assuming health care consumers are rational despite contra evidence and common sense that says that when dealing with their own lives they are not going to accurately guess the right amount of health services because they are not experts (that's what the excise tax assumes) rather than addressing too-big-to-fail as a market failure issue the neoliberals in the WH says that this should become the standard, rather than addressing China's merchantilism we ignore it, rather than addressing the types of jobs created you implicitly set up stagnant wages as a virtue (nevermind wages have been stagnant for those in the bottom 95th percentile for decades), and on and on and on. But, no, neoliberalism does not fail you, you can only fail neoliberalism. You need to do it the "right way." As I wrote before, whereas Republicans see neoliberalism as perfect, Democrats see it as with scars, but mostly needing to just put out a few fires. It is never that the guiding ideological perspective is fatally flawed. Our system is not neoliberalism. Our system has been different types of capitalism. Neoliberalism is only the latest version. The kind of FDR was social capitalism. Please don't tell me the health care bill is social capitalism because that's bullshit. Social capitalism is where we should return since that is the era of which we grew the middle class. That's why we are following behind other countries in Europe regarding economic equality. You advocate a system that focuses on the paper economy of Wall Street. I am thinking of one that focuses on main street. The telling story for me recently was how much the WH ignored the lack of lending to small business until recently even while being on speed dial with Wall Street. Were there priorities in the right place this should have been the first sign of problems. The concern this diarist raises are what people on the street are thinking. It is what as one Dem leader said will kick the Dems ass in Nov 2010. Obama's numbers don't matter because no one will care about them come November. Our ultimate political system is representative democracy. Neoliberalism is ideology that has been pushed onto the American public by both parties since Reagan. Vote Dem- get a neoliberal. Vote Republican- get a neoliberal. If you poll most people on the policies of neoliberal thought-t hey would not want it. But because we are a partisan and personality driven electorate they vote for branding of candidates thinking they are getting what they want, but instead are just getting the lousy bumper sticker. Don't worry, as with bush it will last few a few years. It may even get you through 2012 given the alternative is ape shit crazy. But that does not mean the public buys this ideological perspective. The lesson of the PO is that they don't. The lesson of wall street bail outs is that they don't. Issue after issue shows that same conclusion. I don't give a shit what Bill Clinton created jobs when I know what type of jobs he created overall did not change the trajectory of stangant wages and a declining middle class. IN that context, your statement about the stats is misdirction. He created a stop gap measure. Like all Democrats, including Obama, empirically, looking at the data, they are just putting out fires even while doing as you are doing saying that it is not the underlying ideological perspective. Except, yeah, actually it is that the ideology is fatally flawed: http://www.vimeo.com/6803752

Diaries

Advertise Blogads