Who is Cao?

Stuart - is trading horses in negotiating legislation always bribery? I don't think so. Cao was seemingly very straightforward about this (saw him on CNN this morning). Said he wanted to be able to continue to support the President, and the President had said he wanted to continue to support efforts in his district.

It seems to me that Cao did precisely what he needed to for his district, while maintaining his own principles (some of which I don't agree with).

Kathy:

is trading horses in negotiating legislation always bribery?

Well...if an attempt to influence a vote consists of material rewards, "horse trading" becomes a euphemism, doesn't it?

Sorry Stuart but this is a black majority district, so Cao has to support Obama if he wants a chance at re-election. As for Obama bribing him -- I'd say its more like supporting his constituents.

Well, he is a Louisiana politician, so was there ever any way to influence him besides bribery?

stuart, it's amazing how you draw responses / discussions (here, Amy's pro-life genius post, and others) when others don't. I'm not being sarcastic.

deconstructiva:

it's amazing...

Well...I'm just trying to have an honest discussion.
.
I think people know that I'm not here trying to win arguments for arguments' sake, nor to score political points at the expense of an honest debate.
.
In this case, it sounds like an example of something wrong with our political system, something that the rightists describe as the normal workings of big, bad ol' government.
.
To the extent that this is normal, it would seem then to validate the rightists' claims about the inevitability and necessity of corruption with respect to redistributive policy.
.
I think that liberals need to come to terms with it, even when our side engages in it for big-picture (that's debatable, too, obviously) gain.
.
Sounds like a good discussion point to me, so I brought it up, so that we could have an honest debate that needs having.

Stuart, you know I respect your desire to have honest debate, but I don't think we've achieved that yet. I think you had a knee-jerk reaction, not that I can totally blame you since Congress has done some shady things in its history. But I think its unfair to categorize this situation this way considering what district this is. Obama has always pledged to give this district added support, he campaigned on it. Although A republican represents the district at the moment, that was a fluke and will be rectified in 2010. This is Obama country and if anything Cao was persuaded to at least have one courageous vote recorded for posterity, since he wouldn't be around long anyway.

Dee:
.
It's not knee-jerk, I'm just reading what JNS wrote:

But by far the most amount of pressure came from Cantor and the White House. Obama pledged to work with Cao on additional financial aid for his district, especially in disaster loan forgiveness...

If JNS is correct, and there was "pressure" from Obama, consisting of essentially a quid pro quo (hence JNS' mocking tone on "Of course, according to Cao, the decision was purely altruistic.", dripping with sarcasm) with respect to "financial aid for his district," i.e. "money" that could help Cao specifically get re-elected, then your problem is with JNS' characterization, not my reaction, don't you think?
.
JNS is claiming that "horse trading" occurred, and that this heavily influenced a vote. My contention is that this practice of buying votes through promises of guaranteed financial aid to embattled Congressional districts sounds like legalized bribery.
.
It sounds like you think that JNS is wrong about what happened:

Obama has always pledged to give this district added support, he campaigned on it.

, because JNS is claiming that there was special support being offered by the WH.
.
Your beef should be with her characterization, shouldn't it, Dee?

Sorry Stuart but JNS isn't the only one to blame in this instance. Did she frame the horse trading component yes, but at no point did she insinuate that there was a quid-pro-quo to get Cao re-elected -- that came from you, and it was that assumption that I am responding to. JNS described the district when she said it was Jefferson's old district and that it was +28 Dem. From that information alone you should have recognized that this wasn't about getting Cao reelected, because JNS knows full well that's not going to happen. This is a majority black district that is going to return to the Dems in 2010. Granted that your attempt to read between the lines might have been dead-on in any other district but that's also assuming JNS is correct, and frankly while no disrespect intended Jay, that's not an assumption you normally make either. Usually you ask her to prove her statements or are you going a little softer on her lately?

Say, pork barrel (projects).

Welcome to the American way.

Bribery? Depends on what you are trading for, and where it ends up. If it ends up in your freezer, that's probably bribery. If it ends up helping your constituents -- well, that's sort of what they sent you to Washington to do.

Stuart - I think that negotiating involves each side or group giving a little to get a little, and that's not necessarily dishonorable. There's no suggestion here, as far as I can tell, that Cao is protecting his personal turf or caving to moneyed interests.

He said he sees this bill as good for his constituents, and - knowing the Democrats wanted his vote - he acted in a way to increase the chance of other good things for his district.

Would you act differently in negotiations?

And as for a quid pro quo, progressives as well as conservatives threaten their legislators with a primary if they don't behave according to plan. How is that different?

KT:

...that's sort of what they sent you to Washington to do.

It seems to me that offering a special place at the federal trough in exchange for a legislator's vote (or the guarantee of that vote) poorly serves the republic, whether its by Democrats or Republicans.
.
If constituents view the legislators' job in terms of securing pieces of the federal pie, and it happens systemically, doesn't that more or less validate the conservative critique of government? Isn't the prime conservative (elite's) criticism of wealth redistribution that government necessarily allocates resources inefficiently; i.e. in this manner?
.
Don't government's efficient and effective returns diminish in inverse proportion to unrelated legislative favors determining resource allocation instead of project merit?
.
When I send Carolyn Maloney to the Capitol, I'm not sending her to get our piece of the homeland security pie for local projects, I'm sending her to enact an agenda that I believe benefits the whole country. If she voted for telecom immunity in exchange for promises of federal reimbursement of NYC cops' overtime pay during high security alert episodes, I'd still work my ass off to vote her out of office.
.
Some places in the country, yes, that's what they send their representatives to Congress to do, but that's wrong, and subverts our republican system, and hurts our nation.
.
If that makes me a Republican to say that, then so be it. It's funny, though, how many Republicans in Congress seem to talk one way, yet bring home the pork in another.

kathy:
.
Thanks for responding.

I think that negotiating involves each side or group giving a little to get a little, and that's not necessarily dishonorable.

Of course not! Negotiating isn't evil, it's necessary.
.
That said, if my building coop's board of directors (of which I am the elected president) were voting on whether to allow a significant rooftop development, and I "negotiated" by offering one of the directors a motion to vote on a reimbursement in maintenance payments on their apartment, that would be obviously unethical, and counter to the aims of good governance.
.
Buying votes is not the same as negotiating, in my view.

There's no suggestion here, as far as I can tell, that Cao is protecting his personal turf or caving to moneyed interests.

In this case, the "moneyed interests" would likely be the guy who "pledged to work with Cao on additional financial aid for his district," as JNS put it. I don't know that Cao is protecting his personal turf, you're correct. What is likely, though?

He said he sees this bill as good for his constituents, and - knowing the Democrats wanted his vote - he acted in a way to increase the chance of other good things for his district.

I know he says those things, but, assuming that this is the whole truth, if he would have voted for the bill without "additional financial aid for his district" --purely on its merits-- then to hold that vote as if it were negotiable means that he's dishonest, hardly a quality to be lauded. If increasing the chance of "good things" coming to his district means faking like the bill isn't good enough for America to vote for, then I'm still not convinced that this is far enough away from legal bribery to withdraw that characterization.

Would you act differently in negotiations?

Yes, unless I'm truly confronted by adversaries, and the fate of my country's interests don't hang in the balance.

And as for a quid pro quo, progressives as well as conservatives threaten their legislators with a primary if they don't behave according to plan. How is that different?

How is it different? Well, that's a case of voters holding their representatives accountable for their votes through elections, not the executive purchasing votes from legislators through the offer of agency aid.
.
Assuming for a moment and the sake of argument that the following didn't happen in this case, do you really think that there's no difference between individuals deciding against contributions to a candidate's primary campaign, and federal agency aid to disaster-stricken districts being contingent upon a Representative's vote on unrelated legislation, Kathy?

LOL
.
Man, I shouldn't post on days where I don't have enough time to read what I'm writing, and am interrupted in the middle of sentences with requests from Lovely Bride for even more help deciding between Droid and iPhone 3GS.
.
That isn't an inverse proportion, that's just a diminishing return in proportion to the latter half of that sentence, completed 20 minutes after the former half.
.
Sorry, folks, I shoudn't be writing here, if I'm incoherent.

Stuart: You have a point here:
.
I know he says those things, but, assuming that this is the whole truth, if he would have voted for the bill without "additional financial aid for his district" --purely on its merits-- then to hold that vote as if it were negotiable means that he's dishonest, hardly a quality to be lauded.
.
But this is why each side has to assess whether they have to give up something to get something. Even if I think this is a good bill I might withhold my vote for a greater good, and you have to decide whether I'll blink before you do.
.
Something that makes Cao's circumstance different from many other bringers home of the pork (or your coop organization, presumably) is that his district has experienced dire need, some of which was a direct result of malfeasance on the part of the federal government, and which has been exacerbated by a failure of the federal government to follow through on promises for aid. So I applaud Cao's approach here in a way I seldom do. I have little patience, for example, with those holding up confirmations in order to get their way. And Joe Liebermann leaves me practically speechless with disgust.

Thanks for the discussion, Kathy.

Here's a thought: don't get an abortion! No one is forced to have a back-alley abortion, Tom, if one chooses to do so, that is their own horrific decision. If their is a genuine health risk to the mother stemming from a pregnancy, they will be covered. Elective abortions, just as any other elective operation, should not be covered by a tax-funded program, much like MEDICARE's stipulation.

Perhaps it is people like a recent abortion clinic general manager, who had never witnessed an abortion in action who has now begun to speak out. How she saw on an ultrasound, the vacumn probe going into a woman's womb, and the live fetus struggled to get away from the destruction of the vacumn probe in order to live.
.
Perhaps when this same abortion clinic manager for the first time ever witnessed how the fetus was "crushed" by the vacumn probed as it sucked the contents of the unborn child from it's mother's womb.
.
Why is it that in most all abortions, the doctors refuse to use an ultrasound monitor. Do they want to keep their employees from seeing the destruction? Or, is it their own concious that cannot handle it?
.
Women do have the right to choose to kill their unborn children. However, I have the right to say no to paying for it as a tax payer, and to support the majority of Representatives who voted to strengthen the Hyde Amendment.

Here's a thought: don't get an abortion! No one is forced to have a back-alley abortion, Tom, if one chooses to do so, that is their own horrific decision.
.
Is that a serious comment? If someone can't afford an abortion by a qualified medical provider, they can't afford to properly raise a child. Thus they are faced with two horrific choices: having a child they cannot adequately care for or having a back-alley abortion.

"Is that a serious comment? If someone can't afford an abortion by a qualified medical provider, they can't afford to properly raise a child."

Is that a serious comment? How about accepting responsibility for your actions? If you had sex, got pregnant, you have to accept that. If the mother or father are good people, willing to raise a child to the best of their ability, it doesn't matter what they can or cannot afford with money.

You pay your doctor with cash, he or she doesn't care if you love them. Children are raised on love, not just money. Plenty of children have lived in poor circumstances, seen their mother work two jobs to put them through school, had their father do what ever he could to put dinner on the table, been considered poor their whole lives and have turned out better citizens than those who have lived off a sliver platter.

Hell, I can think of a son of black father and white mother who's father left him, and his mother and grand parents did whatever they could to provide for him a better future him and, consequently for our country. I'm sure Ms Dunham had days when she though she couldn't possible ever have enough money to provide for her child and decided to use love instead.

Rose,
I really don't want to hear any sob stories about not being able to properly care for your kids. I am one of 10 children. My father worked, my mother remained at home raising all of us. We never had everything we wanted, or even needed. But we made due. Everyone pulled their weight and we worked together to make it through the tough times. Now, myself, and my two eldest brothers have BA degrees. My other siblings are a bit younger, though they all excel in school. Each has a positive future ahead of them, if they continue in their diligence and fortitude. My poor parents, however, have always sacrificed their wishes, their desires, for the benefit of their children, like all good parents do when faced with tough circumstances. Neither of my parents have college degrees, nor did they come from wealthy families. We're a working-class family through and through. If we survived with 10 children in the family, I have little doubt that anyone else can as well. Abortion may seem the better, more practical solution. But it's not. It's nothing short of horrific.

Let's be honest, working-class people can afford safe abortions. Poor people can't. Working-class people can afford to raise children decently (assuming good health and general good luck). Poor people can't.
.
Can you honestly argue that your parents, who with frugal choices and hard work were able to raise their family well, couldn't have afforded a safe abortion?
.
BTW, I have the greatest respect for anyone who successfully raises 10 children. Seriously, I'm in awe.

Working-class or middle class? To which are you referring? While in terms of gross income my father's wages would likely put us above the poverty line, however, when you factor in a total of 12 people to provide for, the line becomes quite blurred. 10 children, all requiring clothes, food, school supplies, doctor's visits, gifts for birthdays and Christmases, etc, etc. Top that with regular household bills, electric, mortgage, car payments, groceries, phone, etc, etc. and you have a household on the brink of going under. But we never did, miraculously. While my parents likely could have afforded abortions in the 1980s when the first of me and my siblings arrived, towards the end, $200 dollars for such would have been an impossible amount to come up with. Not that monetary factors played a role, my parents never would have even considered the possibility of having an abortion. They fully accepted what came of their actions. And they survived, and thankfully, we survived as well. That's my point. A poor family willing to make sacrifices and concessions will endure. And their children will thank them for it later in life, for despite the difficulties of growing up poor, I'm thankful to have been granted the right to give life a chance.

Right, the fact that you are defining your family along the binary of working-class and middle-class proves that your family is not who I'm talking about. Because with presents, car payments, and a mortgage, a safe abortion was a doable expense. If you or your siblings required a medical procedure of similar expense, it appears that your family could have found the money.
.
My point here is that you are applying your family's experiences to quite different situations. There are Americans who are much, much poorer than your family. Undoubtedly you are aware of this. But you're not factoring this into your understanding of the abortion funding issue.
.
I can sympathize with where you're coming from. I get the strong opposition to using tax revenue to fund, however indirectly, a procedure many people (including some in my family) believe is morally unacceptable. But what I have no sympathy with is trivializing exactly how horrifying the choice these women face is. Women considering back-alley abortions are not choosing between a dangerous abortion and giving their child the kind of upbringing you had.

Thanks so much for responding to commentary, Jay Newton-Small.

Thanks, Jay. This will be interesting to watch. Maybe this could be another Scozzafava scenario; maybe voters could instead appreciate his efforts.

Cao could also switch parties and say that the current direction of the republican party no longer represents either his views or that of his constituents. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

I also love how the wackos are saying that he's toast because they're going to kick his RINO arse out of office and replace him with a good, white, American wingnut. As if the tea baggers could ever win LA-2. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....

Question, Dee:
The Democratic unanimity is not partisan wrangling? Why? Because you happen align with their votes? That this bill's vote was almost unequivocally along party lines leads you to conclude that the GOP, and only the GOP, were engaging in partisan wrangling. Can you explain why the Democratic tendency on this vote was so altruistic, noble, and independently arrived at by each Representative?

…alas, maybe not all D's motives are Amy-like angelically pure (well, Dee excepted, of course). Dem. Louisiana rep Charlie Melancon joined the R's and voted no …but it's highly likely because he's running for Vitter's Senate seat (I'd really rather see Stormy Daniels run against Vitter instead, but I digress). Good quotes here re: Cao and Melancon from NO paper –
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/rep_cao_is_only_republican_to.html

I'm sorry exiled, but you don't get to claim the high ground after the GOP leadership is the one who named the game. They are the ones who said they were out to break Obama, to make health care his waterloo. They have been playing procedural games that amount to antics that you wouldn't expect to encounter in middle school, ask JNS, while she doesn't report on that much, she can probably attest to the attendance games and myriad other delay tactics.
.
It's not as if the GOP has made a good faith effort to work with this administration from day one.
Our country is in trouble and all they can think about is regaining power. Say what you want about how Democrats treated Bush, but Kennedy worked with him. When Bush came to Congress with the economic crisis the Democrats didn't say well let him stew in his own mess because this is an election year -- they worked with him. And I still remember it was the GOP that tried to play games back then and a third of the wealth of this nation disappeared. So don't pretend you don't remember or try to revise history now. Democrats have been trying to pass health care reform since Truman, you can hardly call universal health care a partisan tool.

The flaw in your tirade seems to be that everyone else but you seems to know that Cao has no way of holding on to the seat. In fact, the only thing he can hope for is that after the Democratic primary another Democratic jumps in the race as an independent and splits the Democratic vote. So knowing that he not liable to return to Congress I think Cao opted for do the right thing over partisan political gamesmanship. My question is why are the only Republicans that are allowed to be of good character, moral fiber, and above reproach, ones that are willing to get down in the gutter with tea bagging rabble rousers and party hacks like Cantor? Yet a former Jesuit priest, who decides to vote for what's best for the voters in his district is somehow an immoral heretic? Hmm!

Republicans ... to promote more bipartisian legislation that meets the needs of ALL Americans, .."

And that is the promotion that the Republicans are achieving in their excellent GOP-version of HCR: Meet the needs of ALL Americans (regardless of pre-existing conditions or ability to pay) at lower cost to the government and at maximum profits for the big pharma and insurance companies.
WIN-WIN-WIN situation.

[Patience please: Rusty has not read or analyzed the report ..]

"Bribery from the White House for votes."

Do you really think that's a new development in American politics?

The fact that the bill is a monstrosity (1.3 trillion!) has nothing to do with the coverage, and the skepticism, eh? Yea, must be because Obama is black. What was I thinking. Sheesh, get over yourself, Dee.

Exiled, how many times are you going to make the same mistake before you learn not to do it. Once again you respond without actually reading the post and you make a characterization based on your misinterpretation rather than what was written Now I don't like calling people names, but clearly I think it's a problem that you need to address. You keep doing the same thing repeatedly without recognizing that you keep getting a similar result which doesn't say much for either your sanity or intellect. Now go back and read the post more slowly and you will see that I didn't say anything about people being against him because he's black. My point was about media bias and what it was doing to public opinion. I talked about a moderate bias, some studies, extra focus on the most negative elements etc. At some point you are going to need to apologize, but I won't hold my breath.

Dee says:

It wasn't long ago that progressives on this very website were complaining that Obama wasn't fighting hard enough, wasn't twisting arms, wasn't acting like Bush or LBJ -- then he helps the house pass a bill in a way that no moderate Democrat can be said to be the one vote responsible in GOP attack ads and now he's thwarting the constitution and bribing legislators.

There was a recent study done I'm still trying to track it down that said voters are not responding to negative ads, but rather the media's reports on negative ads. Of course I'm not surprised, if there is one thing that came out of Stuart's post is that media insinuation can lead us astray. When's the last time you've seen a bill in Congress ever get this kind of media scrutiny, including 1993 the last time health care was on the agenda? With the press negativity and cynicism about the bill dripping from every word, is it any wonder that the public has shown such ambivalence? Clearly, when the bill finally passes and the media stops with constant naysaying this will prove to be a very good thing for Democrats, all except those who voted against it that is.
~~
Dee, don't backtrack now. Your implications were clear. Obama is the first ever elected black President, subsequently he has it harder than those before him. Society is judging him on unreasonable standards. This bill is simply an extension of society's skepticism of a black president's ability. No need to pretend that this is not your position, we all know it to be true. Just stick to your views, Dee. Nothing wrong with that.

I think your fault is you are insinuating that it is progressives who are complaining that Obama played hardball in getting this health care bill through. It is Republicans, their media plants, and the Lieberdems. Their whining is a good thing.
You know how happy it makes me to come on here and see the trolls being even more unhinged and stricken with ODS than usual? If exhaled is being a bigger liar than usual that means things ain't going her way.

Pafro-

...exhaled...?
~~~~
I am not at all upset about this bill. I really don't care anymore, history will judge this administration by the unprecedented financial burden it places on society for lofty idealism. I support universal healthcare, however this bill is not that, and it is greatly more expensive. With that said, I haven't lied. Dee's post was clearly aimed at suggesting that criticism of this bill is veiled skepticism of a black president. It was as clear as could be.
~~~
...her way... Um, yea. Sure. Whatever.

Sorry exhaled, I thought I had read some of your previous trolling and seen you refer to yourself as a her.

Pafro-
Might I be so bold as to ask your definition of trollery? I have never been accused of trolling here. I responded to the substance of Dee's post. I believe you are way off base in your monopolization of the course of this debate. It goes where it goes. I, as you, have every right to post on any matter that comes to mind, yet in this case, I merely responded to Dee's thoughts. Certainly, you disagree with my positions, as I disagree with yours. What does this mean, pafro? That I am less rational than you? That I am intentionally scuttling honest discourse? Am I less American because I hold a different set of values than you and your ilk? What is the source of your ostentation? I'm really quite confused.

Exiled-Neo. You are simply a racist pig conservative (who is a confused libertarian). You called out Dee who is a black woman from Columbia Maryland. A suburb of Baltimore no less, AND she is a liberal Democrat.
.
Suffice it to say that someone like pafro, cannot comprehend the intricacies of logical discussions or why anyone would question another commenter's rationale.
.
So if you are not going to be allowed to be led by the ring in your nose, like a good little liberal Obamabot, spouting the Party talking points, please just stay out of here. You are simply a racist troll.
.
Brought to you by the Democrat Party Committee on furthering the downfall of the liberal meme. And, General Mills, eat more Cheereos!!! Drink more Koolaide!!!

So exiled -- being that you seem to be the expert on all things Dee then you know for a fact that when I said headwinds -- I meant race and not the more obvious notion of two wars, a near economic collapse, an infrastructure that hasn't had much needed investment in over 25 years and that we stand at the brink of catastrophic failure if we allow China to take the lead on climate change and renewable energy that will be the next great global economic engine, while we stand on the sidelines chanting drill baby drill.
.
Frankly, while I can think of a couple of president with as much or close enough to our very survival riding on their shoulder, none had to do it in the in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet age. Whoa exiled -- yeah despite all of that all I could come up with is race as a problem.
.
Perhaps instead of trying to think for me, you might just want try just thinking!
.
Yes, I mentioned that he was black but only in the context of a campaign, where the media constantly had as its narrative that the other guy was inevitable, that he couldn't and wouldn't win because of his race or don't you remember the endless stories about the what the voters were telling pollsters versus what they would really do come election day. Yes, I think I remember a lot of stories about how working whites and even Hispanic wouldn't vote for the black guy and lord knows they rode reverend wright into the ground. Yes, there wasn't a single story with an angle about race they didn't ignore or blow up out of proportion. But despite all of that he had the political skill to overcome everything they threw at him, but now we second guess every political move he makes as if he's the one that was clueless and everyone else wasn't always wrong.
.
Now the thrust of my media critique is based on the study discussed this morning on the morning round up where it was cited that voters weren't responding to negative ads but rather the medias discussion of them. Point simply is that rather than covering the news the media is becoming the news. As was written in the new book the Clinton tapes, for some inexplicable reason the news media has decided that they only cover Democrats through a negative lens. Yes, they did it with Clinton in spades. But Obama has it tougher. Of course not because of race, although that is an issue for some -- it is not germane to my post. Obama has it harder because the internet in it current iteration did not exist. So this white house has much more crap to combat than Clinton.
.
Now exile if you can read all this and still won't man up and apologize for being wrong so be it. But I would appreciate in the future that you don't limit my abilities. Just because you seem to have a one track mind doesn't mean that I do. I am quite capable of holding more than one point of view. And while I may very well believe and could offer scientific proof that in certain circumstances blacks have a harder time when we control for all other variables, that doesn't mean it's my only belief and it doesn't inform every thought I have. If anyone is obsessed with this idea its you. Because this is not the first time, and I have a sneaking suspicion it won't be the last time that you accuse me of a racial agenda when I have made no such assertion, between the lines or otherwise.

Actually, thanks for that explanation, Dee, because I immediately jumped to the same conclusions as neo.
.
I think that sometimes these things need to be spelled out, because they are complex, and sometimes sound like different arguments than the ones being made.
.
That extra effort toward clarity helped, so maybe it's not necessarily reasonable to completely blame your readers for their lack of initial comprehension.

Dee specifically pointed out that you attacked a straw man argument instead of the one she made. That is what trolls do.

Seems to me that the larger lesson here is the one made by Associate Justice Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings when spoke of the need to constantly check our assumptions. What happened here is that several people engaged in something that is quite typical and that is to jump to a conclusion based on your perceptions about a person rather than the facts at hand.
.
Stuart, earlier I suggested that your response to Jay's post was a knee-jerk reaction because you made assumptions about Jay's post based on what you might have read from her in the past. And while your assumptions may have been warrantee at the time you formed them, none of us are standing still. We are all learning and evolving, so regardless of what Jay has written in the past, I could not find fault with her post today, at least not the one you assumed would be there.
.
Similarly, exiled assumed he knew something about something I've written before. And perhaps you remember the same comments, because I do believe I've written in the past that race will make Obama's job harder as any African American working in a corporate culture can attest to. However, that's all besides the point, because that wasn't what was written, nor was it what the post was about. And neither of you get to get off the hook for making false assertions because the writer wasn't clear.
.
Perhaps instead of trying to read between the lines, you should focus on what's on the page. I notice that it happens a lot on this cite. Too many people try to analyze when the only function you can perform with any certainty is criticize. To analyze, you are forced to make judgements about people based on limited information so being wrong should be expected. However, you can critique commentary and make flawless, cogent arguments without worry as long as you actually focus on what is written -- you know that old socratic method. At least that way, there's a much greater chance that clarification won't be needed.

I didn't reach the same conclusion as exiled and stuart, but I was somewhat confused. So thanks, Dee, for clarifying your thoughts. That's a good point about how the increase in coverage will increase the magnitude of bias Obama is facing.

Wait a second, didn't Rusty accuse Exiled of being a closet progressive in a previous thread?

"Wait a second, didn't Rusty accuse Exiled of being a closet progressive in a previous thread?"
.
Yeah because he didn't like the game Neo (like a growing number of republicans) plays.
.
Votes for republicans, supports republicans in large part but says they aren't republican, they are "Libertarians".

Rose I will grant that when I said headwinds, I assumed that everyone would know that the president has a really full plate and that didn't need additional explanation, and frankly I don't mind supplying clarification when needed. But exile has a history about making assumptions about what I'm saying and getting pretty nasty in his response rather than just asking me what I meant, or calling me a liar when I explain. So I don't want anyone to get the impression that I feel that clarifying my words is beneath me, I would just rather folks be right when they call me names.
.
Thanks Pafro, because you nailed exiled pretty well. He pretends he's this reasonable sort but he's always calling me out and calling me names before he finds out he's wrong.

Yeah because he didn't like the game Neo (like a growing number of republicans) plays.
.
I thought it was because Neo deviates from Approved Party Doctrine, and thinks about things instead of screaming "HURRK A DURR SOSHALISM" at the first sign of resistance.

Dee-
~~
I appreciate your clarification. I do not think that I was being "nasty" in any way, shape, or form. As a cognizant human being, I merely interpreted terms that were less than clear and coupled them with a long history of what you have previously written in many threads. I reached a conclusion based upon these factors. I didn't intentionally try to draw a conclusion that was not there. If you say that you honestly were not contending what I accused you of implying, than please accept my apology.
~~
Pafro-
No straw man involved, it's called precedent, of which Dee has alot in this regard.
~~
PNNTO-
You're on to me! How did you obtain my voting record! In fact, I didn't vote in 2000, and I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. I no longer identify with the Republican Party's posturing or rhetoric. I do, however, still consider myself a conservative, and at time a libertarian. Thanks for you insights, though!
~~
Cliff-
I try to spend as much time arguing with progressives as I do right-wing conservatives. If anyone is interested, you can peruse the thread "Middle East Clarity" below just to see how staunchly I follow GOP party doctrine.
~~
Stuart-
Agreed!
~~~
It's been swell, tata!

I try to spend as much time arguing with progressives as I do right-wing conservatives. If anyone is interested, you can peruse the thread "Middle East Clarity" below just to see how staunchly I follow GOP party doctrine.
.
No, no, that's not what I was saying. I fully realize you argue with progressives, that's what got this whole thread started.
.
I just saw that Rusty was trying to back you up in his stupid fashion, when just a few days prior he was planning to staple you to Dede Scozzafava and throw you under the bus.
.
I wanted to highlight his inconsistency, is all.

Cliff-
I know, I followed your reasoning. I was just pointing out, for the benefit of all, that I argue with both ends of the political spectrum, because neither makes sense to me. I wanted PNNTO and such to realize that I often call out conservatives, and I want others to accept that simply because I do that doesn't make me progressive. It's really quite silly, all this labeling and packaging. Everyone fighting over factional ties and trying to play "gotchya" debate by "cornering" their opponents in an ideological bubble. It's ridiculous. But, no worries. I understood your point and simply used it as a catalyst for explaining my independent nature.

Do not worry, Dee. The GOP torch is passing to a new generation of Republican Americans - people who understand that politicis is about working for their constituents rather than themselves.

In three years time Republicans will be talking of Sarah and Rush and Glenn as if they roamed the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. But this will not be a new slant on Creationism. People will truly believe Republican ideology as it is today to be extinct.

Well, art, considering that the Rs are currently purging their party of "RINOs" defections are increasingly more important. In addition, Boehner said there wouldn't be any R defectors. So the defection itself is only significant in context.

Simply, yes. There is not anything such as journalism anymore. Places like TIME hire hacks who go to other websites and regurgitate what they have read.

And, Marion Barry was convicted for snorting crack. What's your point? Are you saying all black voters are negligent and stupid and will vote for anyone that is also black no matter how corrupt they are?
.
Is everyone in the black community like you Dee? Who gives a rat's ass as long as their skin color is black?
.
I know I know. Call me a racist! Big F-ing deal.

Rusty frankly I rarely call you a racist pig because I think stupid pretty much gets to the root of your problem. At no point did I say anything about Barry, although a similar rationale applies. These voters are not stupid, they just think all politicians get there's under the table one way or the other, but law enforcement targets black politician's disproportionately, the same way blacks make up 15 percent of the drug use in this country but are targeted by law enforcement 60 percent of the time. So as far as these voters are concerned they vote for the people who speaks to their issues and brings stuff back to their district. Say what you want about Berry, but he expanded the electorate and brought things to the wards where his votes came from. I don't call that stupid, I call that voting your own interests. I believe that's the same message that an overwhelming number of voters in Alaska sent about Ted Stevens, are they black and stupid too because they voted for a convicted felon? Nor is it the first time voters have done this, but of course when black people do it its about race, when white people do it it's Republican

Cao, very likely to switch. Sounds like he'd end up as one of the less objectionable Blue Dogs, and also sounds like he's bright enough (Jesuits don't turn out dummies) to know he's toast in the Gaga Overthetop Party.

Snowe and Collins? No. Snowe is too old and ornery to switch identifiers just because the national party has - temporarily, from her rather long perspective - gone crazy and tried to edge her out. Their attempts will only get her back up. Meanwhile, Collins is a party sheep in moderate clothing. If Downeasters didn't eject her for being a full-throated Bush enabler in the last election, they're unlikely to do so merely for her sharing a party label with Sarah Palin. Sure, they'll get a lot of hate mail, but it'll all be from out of staters, so they won't pay it any never-mind. Nor do I think the Club for Growth could successfully primary either one of them.

I am sure once the predictions on here come true, and Cao switches parties, good 'ol Charlie Rangel will sink his devil claws deep into his soul. Cao will need all of the training he had in jesuit school to just keep one step ahead of burning in hell the rest of his life.
.
It is messy, really really messy when that happens.

" .. That's what it may take .."

Not necessarily.

He got elected before in that district, didn't he?

Because Jefferson was under investigation for keeping 90k in his freezer. That's the sort of thing that would completely kill most campaigns. The fact that Jefferson still got a large chunk of votes just signals how Dem this district is, and how tough reelection may be.

Look at Alaska. Ted Stevens had been indicted, tried AND convicted on 7 felony counts and only lost by a few thousand votes. If the voters feel that a representative was doing a good job of representing them they'll turn a blind eye in most cases. Sad, but true. The only reason a congressman in my district didn't run just a few years ago was because he was IN prison. (Ney)

I know what you mean, sacred,. I was represented by Traficant for awhile.

Sometimes I'm not sure whether I should be disgusted or amused. I'm enough of a cynic to think that most politicians are crooks, but it's hard not to be impressed by how blatant some of them can be. I do have a certain fondness for the outrageous crooks. It's hard to tell if they follow the constitution or the Sopranos.