Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In the real world I agree with the last sentence, but I stand on my belief that the government should not be in the business of incentivizing spending/saving/investment/estate planning decisions via the tax code. I see it purely as marxist distortion. And keep in mind, my one big deduction is my mortgage and I am against the mortgage interest deduction. The government should not be incentivizing home ownership at the expense of the rental market. If it stopped, more people might ascertain that renting was moire advantageous and then sink the money from the down payment/equity into other investments that could provide greater benefits to society as a whole.

I agree it should not fiddle with the markets, but if it must fiddle, the interest deduction is damn sensible fiddling. If there's one thing the past decade has shown us its that Americans don't know how to invest. At least real estate is a (in comparison to others) low volatility market. The last thing we need is people out there betting their savings on what they read in Derivatives for Dummies.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unless this a real convoluted (and risky) attempt of nominating a woman AND someone tapped by Reid - who will be tagged unqualified by the ABA and get Borked in Committee ...

Thus leading to a "hey Dems, I went with your choice - it failed - now say hi to Owen or Luttig"...

then I blame Bush too.

If what you are saying is that he has put her up as a kind of strawoman, because he really wants someone else, the I agree.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
W. worships his father. He worked in the 88 campaign and the 92 campaign and in both he was intensly loyal and protective. Any criticism of his father angered him immensely. They have the same friends, run in the same circles (went to all the same schools both were pilots) and don't understand why so many conservative thought the apple had moved so far from the tree. Especially, when it was obvious the mistakes his father made and that W. was learning from those mistakes.

I always had the inkling that W. was more moderate than me. He clearly is not as fiscally conservative as I am, and as Al Franken pointed out, his knowledge of the bible is limited. Usually the thumpers know their bible.

I am not questioning that he is and was loyal to his dad and the criticism angered him. I knew all that. But his dad was not a Reagan conservative and I thought Bush was closed to Reagan than he was to his dad in philosophy. His dad was not a tax cutter. He may have believed in fiscal conservativism but not in small government fiscal conservatism, more balanced budget big government.

Rhetoric aside, I think W is different than his dad politically. And not just by the example of learning from his dad's mistakes, but the current court nominee is a mistake, it is a mistake that is reminiscent of one of his dad's two biggest historically impacting mistakes (Souter and failing to take out Saddam) and like his dad, it is a direct repudiation of a major campaign plank that induced a sizable number of people to vote for him, i.e. Big lie, albeit not under oath, so not as egregious as perjury.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But what the fuck happened with the spending? I never voted for that back in 2000.

Bush is not a fiscal conservative like we are. He is not as bad as Delay but he thinks government needs to really step up in certain areas. He really wants to help people and wants to use government to do it. I mainly ended up on his enemy list because I was disloyal, but I also think I ended up there because he thinks I am one of those crazy fiscal conservatives that wants to destroy the safety net. I don't think they cared when I wrote articles about his pro-life stuff, but the articles I wrote critisizing their fiscal prudence really crossed the line and showed the people around him that I was a "financial ideologue" that couldn't be trusted. My fiscal criticisms were damaging to his administration in the "Valley" and I am pretty sure that is why I became "persona non grata". I think the social conservatives around he think I lost favor because of my socially liberal views, but I am pretty sure it was they new I could not be trusted to go along with the spending increases. They warned Arnold that I was a knee jerk fiscal conservative. I don't think I am, but that is the way I am perceived.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unless this a real convoluted (and risky) attempt of nominating a woman AND someone tapped by Reid - who will be tagged unqualified by the ABA and get Borked in Committee ...

Thus leading to a "hey Dems, I went with your choice - it failed - now say hi to Owen or Luttig"...

then I blame Bush too.

Interesting theory. I would be tempted to reject it outright, but stumbled upon these tidbits from Ryan Lizza:

• For instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers's long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:
  
  
  * Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...
  
  * Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Oh, my.

It seems extremely unlikely that Bush would offer up a crony as a tactical sacrifice, but reading stuff like this makes me wonder.

Either that, or the White House's vetting staff has just been shot dead on the South Lawn. Someone please collect the bodies.

Gattigap

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree it should not fiddle with the markets, but if it must fiddle, the interest deduction is damn sensible fiddling. If there's one thing the past decade has shown us its that Americans don't know how to invest. At least real estate is a (in comparison to others) low volatility market. The last thing we need is people out there betting their savings on what they read in Derivatives for Dummies.

Why? It is their money. If the real estate market bubble bursts (and ftr, I don't believe this is possible on a national scale) the pundits and liberals in congress will be saying the same thing about allowing people to bet their savings on real estate.

I am in consistent in one thing, let the market decide.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
and like his dad, it is a direct repudiation of a major campaign plank that induced a sizable number of people to vote for him, i.e. Big lie, albeit not under oath, so not as egregious as perjury.

Important you remembered this caveat. You almost stepped on the rake.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If what you are saying is that he has put her up as a kind of strawoman, because he really wants someone else, the I agree.

Well, if Reid already okeyed her, then the people most likely to knock her down are the Republicans. It doesn't make that much sense to me that is a likely scenario.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
dissent. The far right will sit out or vote for Gary Bauer. The problem with you pragmatic moral relativists is you have no guiding principles and thus you can't understand how people with principle act. I voted for Perot in 92 on principle. Bush lied about tax increases. I voted against him knowing full well that this was part of trend that would put Clinton in office. the far right have far more principle than I do. If it was as easy as they have no one else to vote for, the party would not have had to pander to them for the last 25 years. Bush increased the dependency on these voting bloc and now has fucked the party. You win. You should be happy.

I'm really sick of hearing the moral relativist charge. You do realize that if it wasn't for us relativists, nothing would ever get done, don't you? There is nothing morally deficient in compromising. But there is something intellectually - and from a common sense and logical perspective - quite lacking in refusing to compromise.

My guiding principle is trying to get somewhere - trying to overcome differences to reach consensus. Thats a quaint notion in the age of Rove, but I think its coming back. I think people are crying for centrism. And I think you'll find moral relativist will be a compliment in the next ten years. I'll be happy to say I was one all along.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Interesting theory. I would be tempted to reject it outright, but stumbled upon these tidbits from Ryan Lizza:

• For instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers's long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:
  
  
  * Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...
  
  * Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Oh, my.

It seems extremely unlikely that Bush would offer up a crony as a tactical sacrifice, but reading stuff like this makes me wonder.

Either that, or the White House's vetting staff has just been shot dead on the South Lawn. Someone please collect the bodies.

Gattigap

The thing is, based on that, who is going to shoot her down, the Republicans?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
as Al Franken pointed out, his knowledge of the bible is limited. Usually the thumpers know their bible.

Last time I checked, "thumping" is not a synonym with "reading." The moniker is not arbitrary.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Wait, she had a pivotal role in the largest scandal ever to rock the executive branch, ensuring not only that any nomination of her is never going to succeed, but also creating an entirely unnecessary pretense and drawn out political battle for all judicial nominations going forward, thereby tarnishing not just one branch of govenment, as she had done 15 years prior, but actually getting the trifecta?

Or do you mean something else by being "Borked"?

I am very glad that he is not on the Supreme Court, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that Bork did anything wrong in 1973, particularly not that "tarnished the [Executive] Branch of government."

S_A_M

FWIW, both of his fired/resigned superiors, Eliot Richardson and [the other one] counseled/urged Bork to keep his position for the good of DOJ -- and thus to fire the IC. Only so many of the top leaders can fall on their swords over a principle without it severely damaging the operations of the Department.

As symbolic gestures of protest which appropriately damaged the Nixon presidency, the first two resignations were enough.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Important you remembered this caveat. You almost stepped on the rake.

No such luck G. This is a personal (albeit on a grand scale) betrayal of trust, like with his dad, although more painful because I expected to be let down by his dad, the other kind of lie violates the rule of law. I have an oath to uphold the same. I think. What kind of oath do we take? Soemthing, right?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The thing is, based on that, who is going to shoot her down, the Republicans?

Agreed, it's unlikely.

Therefore, please have Maintenance clear the bodies of the dead vetting team from the South Lawn. I understand the power of metaphor, but really. The President doesn't need to watch that shit through the Oval windows.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
It seems extremely unlikely that Bush would offer up a crony as a tactical sacrifice, but reading stuff like this makes me wonder.

I disagree. Who better to fall on a sword than a long-time political friend and ally (see Webb Hubbell)

It still seems too roundabout though.