How is this c*nt still walking around with functioning limbs?

Hey, wait a minute - isn't that this Rove guys MO? That is kind of IRONIC!

So he's basically accusing him of being a politician?

Well, he is a lawyer by trade.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view?

Perhaps he missed Jindal's response.

Diogenes: Perhaps he missed Jindal's response.

No kidding. That's been *exactly* the Republican position. Government has never created a single job, and FDR caused the Great Depression through government spending.

Diogenes: Perhaps he missed Jindal's response.

I watched his response, but I didn't hear him saying anything like that. I couldn't find it in the transcript either. The closest thing he said was:
We oppose the national Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.

Were you thinking of someone else?

Last One Left: Were you thinking of someone else?

Well, for as much as you think I may be misrepresenting Jindal's position, that quote you chose demonstrates his misrepresentation of the Democrats' position. Democrats don't want to increase dependence, and that's a much different argument than the one over how large a role government should have.

Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us.

Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina -- we have our doubts.

Let me tell you a story.

I could glean the transcript, but Jindal's philosophy is not embodied in specific quotes. It was thematic. His anecdote (which is probably invented) basically said that in the most dire of circumstances the government is incapable of doing anything. That's Grover Norquist territory.

Diogenes: Well, for as much as you think I may be misrepresenting Jindal's position

No, I'm entirely aware conservatives are skeptical of government, in general, but that is not the same as government playing no role. Jindal is skeptical too, but I doubt he believes, as a government figure, that government plays no role.

My point, really, was that Obama is mis-representing the view of conservatives as quasi-anarchists, much as Jindal mis-represents Democrats' views. They both believe government plays a part; the question is one of degree, as you correctly pointed out. It's just pathetic that both sides seek to stereotype each other, in order to make lame points. If anyone should understand that the world isn't black and white, it should be these two.

I could glean the transcript, but Jindal's philosophy is not embodied in specific quotes. It was thematic. His anecdote (which is probably invented) basically said that in the most dire of circumstances the government is incapable of doing anything.

I took it as a story of not relying on government and its incompetence. I don't know if it's true, but the Bush Administration did seem that incompetent back then. I think his point was that bigger government = more bureaucracy. I really don't know.

why isn't he in jail for his multiple counts of contempt of congress yet?

Last One Left: I took it as a story of not relying on government and its incompetence. I don't know if it's true, but the Bush Administration did seem that incompetent back then. I think his point was that bigger government = more bureaucracy. I really don't know.

No his point that nonrival public goods are NOT best controlled by the government. Things like disaster management (are we really going to send NO support and watch municipality governments collapse?), and volcano monitoring (saved BILLIONS of dollars in aircraft at Clark AFB in the 90s) are anathema to Jindal's version of conservatism.

That's not a misrepresentation. That's what he said. He doesn't believe the federal government has a role in EITHER of those territories. Government continuation and crisis monitoring are national freaking defense issues, and only an anarchist would balk at that. Even us conservatives have to facepalm over that one, and make us question what else he wants to cut.

Last One Left: My point, really, was that Obama is mis-representing the view of conservatives as quasi-anarchists, much as Jindal mis-represents Democrats' views.

I think that's what's holding us back in the debate. You have the loudmouths at the far ends of the political spectrum whharrggglhhiinn "no government in anything" and "government should do it all." In the meantime, the reasonable people are doing the actual work somewhere in the middle. No on hears from them because they're too busy getting shiat done.

palladiate: That's not a misrepresentation. That's what he said. He doesn't believe the federal government has a role in EITHER of those territories. Government continuation and crisis monitoring are national freaking defense issues, and only an anarchist would balk at that. Even us conservatives have to facepalm over that one, and make us question what else he wants to cut.

Absolutely. In order to take Jindal's speech seriously you'd need to remove all the subtext. He said explicitly, albeit through anecdote, that the government only hinders disaster relief and has no business in disaster prevention and monitoring. There's just... NO defending that.

Sigh...

Why is this guy not in jail...

palladiate: That's not a misrepresentation. That's what he said. He doesn't believe the federal government has a role in EITHER of those territories. Government continuation and crisis monitoring are national freaking defense issues, and only an anarchist would balk at that. Even us conservatives have to facepalm over that one, and make us question what else he wants to cut.

This strikes you as the speech of an anarchist?
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

He believes volcano monitoring is wasteful spending. I think that's a function of his lack of (scientific) knowledge, not of his belief in anarchy. If he was a closet anarchist, he wouldn't say some of the projects make sense and he sure as hell wouldn't be taking some of that money.

It's the same kind of thing that McCain railed against last year, with regards to the planetarium, and Palin railed against, with regards to fruit flies. It's not anarchism; it's faux populism.

Last One Left: Diogenes: Well, for as much as you think I may be misrepresenting Jindal's position

No, I'm entirely aware conservatives are skeptical of government, in general, but that is not the same as government playing no role. Jindal is skeptical too, but I doubt he believes, as a government figure, that government plays no role.

My point, really, was that Obama is mis-representing the view of conservatives as quasi-anarchists, much as Jindal mis-represents Democrats' views. They both believe government plays a part; the question is one of degree, as you correctly pointed out. It's just pathetic that both sides seek to stereotype each other, in order to make lame points. If anyone should understand that the world isn't black and white, it should be these two.

I could glean the transcript, but Jindal's philosophy is not embodied in specific quotes. It was thematic. His anecdote (which is probably invented) basically said that in the most dire of circumstances the government is incapable of doing anything.

I took it as a story of not relying on government and its incompetence. I don't know if it's true, but the Bush Administration did seem that incompetent back then. I think his point was that bigger government = more bureaucracy. I really don't know.

Perhaps if Karl wasn't linked to Grover "Drown the Fed" Norquist, his protests might ring truer.

Karl has never been an advocate of fair or balanced government, but for a subservient Fed. It's ironic that suddenly there are born again Conservatives who are finding lip service to the ideals of the party, after so many years shoving good Conservatives from the table, attacking them, and trying to relegate them to the sidelines, if not muzzle them for daring to point out the radicals that took the center of the party.

Jindal's speech was the first that I've heard in a while that begins to touch on those values--and while his sing song delivery wasn't great, and he himself has issues with the support of the Religious Right, that was welcome to my ears. In theory. In practice, there remains a great deal to be seen, because at this point, I simply don't trust the leadership of the party to respond in a sane fashion. Individual Senators and Representatives, but the leadership has proven itself inept and out of touch. And Rove is part of that machine.

What is ironic is that Rove helped to expand the Fed to such a bloatsom degree that it fell very easily into the plan of Starve the Beast which was such an asinine and destructive strategy, and now calls for restraint? NOW he suddenly finds his Born Again Conservatism after the trouncing of the radical agenda he's pursued for the last 20 years?

Last One Left: He believes volcano monitoring is wasteful spending. I think that's a function of his lack of (scientific) knowledge, not of his belief in anarchy. If he was a closet anarchist, he wouldn't say some of the projects make sense and he sure as hell wouldn't be taking some of that money.

It's the same kind of thing that McCain railed against last year, with regards to the planetarium, and Palin railed against, with regards to fruit flies. It's not anarchism; it's faux populism.

It's one caveat among a pile of goofy examples. I don't think anyone actually believes the Republicans are closet anarchists. They're happy to fund roads, the military, etc. But they're basing their platform more than ever on the ignorance of people who they hope will react to "OMG floating Disneyland train lol" negatively. Their positions are schizophrenic and extreme.

hubiestubert: What is ironic is that Rove helped to expand the Fed to such a bloatsom degree that it fell very easily into the plan of Starve the Beast which was such an asinine and destructive strategy, and now calls for restraint? NOW he suddenly finds his Born Again Conservatism after the trouncing of the radical agenda he's pursued for the last 20 years?

Karl Rove is a tool and always has been, but he is a master spinner. It seems to me, he's arguing the contrary because Obama's a Democrat. I couldn't care less what he thinks, quite honestly, but I see the same thing happening now that happened in 2001: after promises of bi-partisanship and respect, every argument is laced with stereotypes, spin and taunts. If it didn't affect public policy, I wouldn't care, but it clearly does.

I just hope Diogenes is right about this:
In the meantime, the reasonable people are doing the actual work somewhere in the middle. No on hears from them because they're too busy getting shiat done.

Senescent Dawn: It's one caveat among a pile of goofy examples. I don't think anyone actually believes the Republicans are closet anarchists.

I agree. That's why I find Obama's statement unhelpful, at the very best. And Jindal's no better.

They're happy to fund roads, the military, etc. But they're basing their platform more than ever on the ignorance of people who they hope will react to "OMG floating Disneyland train lol" negatively. Their positions are schizophrenic and extreme.

Both sides have a message that preys on the citizenry's ignorance of the nuances of the other's argument. But in public addresses, especially important ones, tone down the damn rhetoric.

Even Congressional hearings with Bernanke and Geithner are full of badgering rhetoric. I'm not sure if these people actually realize how bad things are; would they be trying to score partisan brownie points after another terrorist attack?

burndtdan: why isn't he in jail for his multiple counts of contempt of congress yet?

Because Pelosi and Reid are pussies. Why the hell weren't they kicked out and replaced with someone who could, I dunno, LEAD?

"Twisting the truth to advance politics" is Open Source, they all use that one for free. More ironic is the accusation itself, straight from page 1 of the Rove/Atwater playbook: Project your own faults onto your opponents.

Rove's become a cartoon of himself.

Last One Left: hubiestubert: What is ironic is that Rove helped to expand the Fed to such a bloatsom degree that it fell very easily into the plan of Starve the Beast which was such an asinine and destructive strategy, and now calls for restraint? NOW he suddenly finds his Born Again Conservatism after the trouncing of the radical agenda he's pursued for the last 20 years?

Karl Rove is a tool and always has been, but he is a master spinner. It seems to me, he's arguing the contrary because Obama's a Democrat. I couldn't care less what he thinks, quite honestly, but I see the same thing happening now that happened in 2001: after promises of bi-partisanship and respect, every argument is laced with stereotypes, spin and taunts. If it didn't affect public policy, I wouldn't care, but it clearly does.

I just hope Diogenes is right about this:
In the meantime, the reasonable people are doing the actual work somewhere in the middle. No on hears from them because they're too busy getting shiat done.

Last One Left: hubiestubert: What is ironic is that Rove helped to expand the Fed to such a bloatsom degree that it fell very easily into the plan of Starve the Beast which was such an asinine and destructive strategy, and now calls for restraint? NOW he suddenly finds his Born Again Conservatism after the trouncing of the radical agenda he's pursued for the last 20 years?

Karl Rove is a tool and always has been, but he is a master spinner. It seems to me, he's arguing the contrary because Obama's a Democrat. I couldn't care less what he thinks, quite honestly, but I see the same thing happening now that happened in 2001: after promises of bi-partisanship and respect, every argument is laced with stereotypes, spin and taunts. If it didn't affect public policy, I wouldn't care, but it clearly does.

I just hope Diogenes is right about this:
In the meantime, the reasonable people are doing the actual work somewhere in the middle. No on hears from them because they're too busy getting shiat done.

You don't hear a lot from Olympia Snowe outside of Maine. Because she's too damn busy to get into pissing contests. She's in committee or she's working on legislation. Much like Sue Collins. They draw the ire of those who apparently have enough time on their hand to note that they aren't getting a lot of face time, and aren't harping on the fact that they're women, Republicans, and ain't talking about Putin rearing his head over the horizon.

At this point, I think the real hope for the GOP lies in hard working Senators and Reps who are concentrating their efforts on the actual job at hand, as opposed to making the media and story their focus.

Last One Left: This strikes you as the speech of an anarchist?

It strikes me as the speech of a stupid anarchist. He offers NO justification for government services or role. He only provides examples of things that are natural obligations of government, namely supporting basic and cost-effective national defense, and says they are examples of what is wrong.

How can he come back and say, with any intellectual honesty and say the government has ANY role in order or national defense?

From an economics standpoint, his examples of "bad spending" are what real conservative thinkers justify as "necessary government," things that are natural monopolies the benefit cannot be reasonably restricted. Things such as law, national defense, disaster continuation, police, fire protection, all of these confer communal benefits, but are rife with uncontrollable externalities. Your neighbor cannot charge you for putting out his house fire even though if he let it burn, yours was endangered by the flames. Property law would prevent you from hiring a fire squad to put out his fire even though it was endangering yours.

No sane conservative argues against things like disaster monitoring. We argue against things such as basic health care that CAN and SHOULD remain private, because the benefits are rather easily controlled and privatized, highly infectious diseases excepted. But no, he reaches out for quite a few examples of when the government actually does it's job, and ignores the billions of other places it doesn't. That's a powerful message. I don't know whether it's powerfully honest, or powerfully stupid, and powerfully don't care which it is.

Why is this editorial writer distorting Pres. Bush's terrible record in order to make him look less bad?

"Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush."

Oh... couldn't they have put that at the top of the article and saved us all a bit of time?

hubiestubert: You don't hear a lot from Olympia Snowe outside of Maine. Because she's too damn busy to get into pissing contests. She's in committee or she's working on legislation. Much like Sue Collins. They draw the ire of those who apparently have enough time on their hand to note that they aren't getting a lot of face time, and aren't harping on the fact that they're women, Republicans, and ain't talking about Putin rearing his head over the horizon.

I've definitely heard of her, but you're right, I don't know who she is. If she's anything like what you say she is, the US deserves more like her and less like Maxine Waters.

At this point, I think the real hope for the GOP lies in hard working Senators and Reps who are concentrating their efforts on the actual job at hand, as opposed to making the media and story their focus.

Fat chance.

palladiate: How can he come back and say, with any intellectual honesty and say the government has ANY role in order or national defense?

I think he pointed out something about security in the end of his speech. I think that's the problem: he doesn't see volcano monitoring as a function of defense because volcanoes haven't exploded in the US for a while, IIRC. Thus, there is no threat. That's a misunderstanding of basic science.

From an economics standpoint, his examples of "bad spending" are what real conservative thinkers justify as "necessary government," things that are natural monopolies the benefit cannot be reasonably restricted. Things such as law, national defense, disaster continuation, police, fire protection, all of these confer communal benefits, but are rife with uncontrollable externalities.

Those aren't necessarily natural monopolies. See Blackwater for national defense, plenty of organizations for disasters, private security for policing, etc. I think you're thinking of "public goods".

Last One Left: I think you're thinking of "public goods".

No, I'm not.

Last One Left: private security for policing

Are you willing to give mall cops powers of search and seizure against citizens who don't pay them? That isn't an "opt-in" scenario.

Last One Left: Blackwater for national defense

I'm pretty damn certain that the government still pays them. They're a contractor, but they DO answer to the government. GE doesn't pay them to put combat forces in Iraq, the US does.

Last One Left: Those aren't necessarily natural monopolies.

They are, but more than that. They have lots of other economic attributes that either you know because you have a degree in economics, or you don't and likely don't have the time to listen to me explain rivalry, elasticity, substitution, and externalities and their effect on monetizing and privatizing benefit.

Some goods, due to their public importance, inability to be monetized, and inability to be privatized make them natural candidates for government control. Defense, security, and law are big ones. Even local defense militias were government-controlled to a good degree, echoed in "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment.

Last One Left: That's a misunderstanding of basic science.

Yea. This tells me I'm sure we pretty much agree on the issue. I'm a little worked up on the issue because his speech makes my political and ideological philosophy look abysmally stupid. It's as Derbyshire said this week, this level of discourse makes us dumb, Happy-Meal Republicans ^{(^)}.

palladiate: Are you willing to give mall cops powers of search and seizure against citizens who don't pay them? That isn't an "opt-in" scenario.

There's more to policing than search and seizure.

I'm pretty damn certain that the government still pays them. They're a contractor, but they DO answer to the government. GE doesn't pay them to put combat forces in Iraq, the US does.

Of course it does, because it's the natural consumer of their services. That doesn't make it a natural monopoly. If anything, it's a monopsony.

They are, but more than that. They have lots of other economic attributes that either you know because you have a degree in economics, or you don't and likely don't have the time to listen to me explain rivalry, elasticity, substitution, and externalities and their effect on monetizing and privatizing benefit.

Actually, I understand all of those ideas. I just don't think the LRAC of the military, for example, slopes downward forever. They don't get economies of scale by entering two (or more) wars.

I don't really want to get into a technical battle here, though. I'm just presenting my understanding of a natural monopoly. IANAE.

Karl Rove accuses Barack Obama of twisting truth to advance politics

I'm no psychologist, but this one seems pretty easy to diagnose.

FTA: ...Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

I couldn't read any more.

Last One Left: Diogenes: Perhaps he missed Jindal's response.

I watched his response, but I didn't hear him saying anything like that. I couldn't find it in the transcript either. The closest thing he said was:
We oppose the national Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.

Were you thinking of someone else?



Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem


The scariest words in the English language are "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Lots of liberal butthurt in this thread, as early as the Boobies. Good jorb!

Thoughts on the headline? Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Couldn't care less what Pop-N-Fresh has to say about anything anymore...

Was the Obvious tag out on a smoke break?

Obama = politician = truth twister

Hey, I remember this guy!

He's gonna create a permanent Republican majority!


FAIL!

NotLinky: Was the Obvious tag out on a smoke break?

Obama = politician = truth twister

One.

NotLinky: Was the Obvious tag out on a smoke break?

Obama = politician = truth twister

Hell yeah.
Word up to Karl Rove for speaking Truth to Power, as always.

/*retch*

Hahahaha....the big bad boogie man liberals can never get over.

Why does he routinely ascribe to opponents views they don't espouse?

Rove, accusing Obama of the very tactics he is guilty of. How very Rovian of him.

This turd blossom is the ideological rot of the American Republic.

Diogenes: On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view?

Perhaps he missed Jindal's response.

Or missed that they just reactivated Norquist.

rofl. views they don't aspouse. lol.

why is it funny? because they do have those views. or at least did 40 days ago.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

?!?!

SO it's not a strawman but in the very next line he makes that exact argument, that the only good a government can do is go away.

Wow. Who wrote that shiatrag?
Oh wait. Nevermind.

EL OH farking EL

It's not often that I think this of people, but Rove should just shut the hell up and recognize that he isn't the player he used be. He's a has-been whose political posturing serves barely more purpose than commentary from Coulter.

Good article. It's always funny to see the sputtering, leg-tingling retorts from the B. Hussein minions too.

Last One Left: My point, really, was that Obama is mis-representing the view of conservatives as quasi-anarchists, much as Jindal mis-represents Democrats' views. They both believe government plays a part

In Jindal's world view, what role does government play, and why? To be totally honest, I have absolutely no idea, and that's why I thought the response was a joke.

You may not like Obama's political philosophy, but at least it's coherent. In fact, I'd say one of the most refreshing things about him is that he is able to express very clearly what role he envisions that government should play in society.

I sense absolutely no such clarity from the GOP. For far too long, they have been campaigning on tax cuts and reductions in government merely for their own sake. I haven't heard a conservative in the past two decades say, "These are the types of things that government should do, and this is why. And these are the types of things that government should not do." In that same time period, I haven't heard a conservative say, "Taxes are meant to pay for essential government services, and not for any other purpose. The government only requires X amount of revenue to provide those services, so we should limit taxation to only what government needs to efficiently operate."

Last One Left: I don't really want to get into a technical battle here, though. I'm just presenting my understanding of a natural monopoly. IANAE.

I didn't mean to imply they take on all or only natural monopolies. Some monopolies they should wholly take, such as fire prevention. Some, such as electricity and phone, they shouldn't. Others are monopsony situations, like defense contractors (you can't buy heavy arms or newer jet craft without being the military). Still others are just not socially acceptable to relinquish control over, like police powers (still a great economic argument to back it up).

I didn't say they should own those industries. I said they should own the POWER over those industries. And they do. Sometimes, as in the case of the military, it is cheaper to maintain our own and not rely solely on contractors. Loyal forces are very, very, very valuable. We get that loyalty cheap. It's a good deal.

You mentioned average costs. That's says nothing about war powers. Would we allow GM access to the military at the level of the federal government? The ability of Ford Motors to hire an army and rampage through Sudan might be good evidence they're a sovereign nation. I don't think that's a situation anyone would want to see, even if it means that the market in armies becomes more stable and pushes prices down. While it might be nice to see the cost of war reduced, I don't think we should go about it by increasing the market for war. I don't think that could work out as a net positive.

As with the power of search and seizure, it, too, firmly rests in the state. They can give it to agents or mercenaries, but the authority cannot be purchased to use against your fellow citizens, nor should it be. The ultimate owner of police powers is the state. Because we damn sure don't want Citibank able to seize your Bank of America financial accounts and move them to their bank.

Blackwater doesn't have the power to wage war. The state does. The police chief does not have police powers. The state does. They just hire mercenaries because it can be more cost effective. Blackwater would be in shiat-deep if they invaded the beaches of Normandy next week.

There are LOTS of complex factors you can read up on, with different political theories, about when the government should assume power. Agencies that carry out that power? Yes, I'm with you, they could get cheaper. But what Jindal was implying is that a major national defense POWER, namely volcano security at areas that include a military base that has already been spared from eruption damage from early warnings, shouldn't rest with the state.

You might contract that power out cheaper, but at 120 million, I doubt it. But he didn't say that. He said it's wasteful spending. It's not, and it's absurd to say so.

Maybe he doesn't believe it. Maybe he didn't really think about the speech before he said it. Maybe he's a great guy who'll suck your dick on the first date. I don't know, but he gave a terrifically stupid speech, and that's pretty damaging to his reputation.

Boy, the Libtard butthurt is strong on this one. Butthurt much?
Butthurt.

Corvus: Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

?!?!

SO it's not a strawman but in the very next line he makes that exact argument, that the only good a government can do is go away.

I'd go further, and say that he makes the argument that the purpose of taxation is to socially engineer growth.

I'm decidedly liberal, but I honestly don't for the life of me understand why conservatives keep boxing themselves in like that. If they want to argue for minimal taxation, the argument they should be making is that taxation has one and only one purpose, to fund essential government programs. If we're taxing in excess of what government needs for its most essential operating costs, then taxes should be cut, and if programs are not essential, they shouldn't be funded.

Instead, conservatives keep prattling on about how taxes are "punishment."

THIS JUST IN:

The source of an argument is irrelevant to its veracity. Evaluate the position, not the man.