Here is an interesting "procedural rule" for ya... :D

Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate can pass any measure that doesn't spend State money by a simple majority..

16 Votes...

The Wisconsin Senate can simply attach the new rule that removes collective bargaining rights for State employees to other legislation that doesn't spend State money and then pass it with the Senators they have on hand...

Looks like the Dem Senators in Wisconsin really stepped on their wee-wees with this latest charade...

One should never bluff when one has such a weak hand...

It also should be noted that Senate Republicans in Wisconsin offered a compromise whereas the new law would go into affect and expire in 2013.

Democrats and the Unions don't WANT a compromise.. They are simply desperate to hold onto power...

Michale.....

NYPoet....

What's your take on this??

Is it better to pull some benefits of teachers and state workers??

Or can 12,000 teachers and state workers??

Michale....

Sorry... That was incredibly sexist... :D

Amend that to read, "I simply can't imagine a teacher who would place their benefits package over the welfare of their students.."

Michale.....

What you are referring to is 20/20 hindsight.. :D

You mean the "world's nanny"? :)

No more so than NYPD or LAPD is New York's and Los Angelos's "nanny"..

There's a big, a HUGE difference between a Nanny and a Cop... I am the latter and married to the former.. :D

Using procedural rules to obstruct and block? I'm not personally for it, but both parties do it and in this case I think its an interesting protest.

Running and hiding out of state, out of reach of the law is NOT "procedural rules to obstruct and block."..

It's a complete and utter abrogation of the responsibilities of a legislator and utter decimates the concept of democracy...

Watch closely which narrative dominates the media. If I were folks in Wisconsin, the question I would ask is, this guy promised jobs, why isn't he focusing on how to generate more jobs?

As opposed to Democrats who, if they had their way, would eliminate 10,000 state and teaching jobs..

Seems like it's the Republicans who ARE concerned for jobs in Wisconsin, while the Democrats/Union are only concerned about holding on to power...

I simply can't imagine a teacher who would place her benefits package over the welfare of their students..

Such a teacher doesn't DESERVE the job....

Michale.....

Fair enough. I would disagree because in the long run I believe Democracy in other countries will be better for our best interests than the corrupt puppet leaders we put in place, but fair enough.

But, ya know, it ALSO justifies the US's role as the world's police. :D

You mean the "world's nanny"? :)

What's your opinion about how Wisconsin Democrats are short-circuiting democracy by running and hiding out of state instead of doing their jobs?

Using procedural rules to obstruct and block? I'm not personally for it, but both parties do it and in this case I think its an interesting protest.

Republicans won back a lot of popular support by obstructing and using procedural rules to stand in the way of President Obama. I don't know if Wisconsin Democrats can do the same.

Watch closely which narrative dominates the media. If I were folks in Wisconsin, the question I would ask is, this guy promised jobs, why isn't he focusing on how to generate more jobs?

"Wisconsin is open for business. We will work tirelessly to restore economic growth and vibrancy to our state. My top three priorities are jobs, jobs, and jobs." -Scott Walker, election night speech

I don't believe Mr. Walker ever said anything about stripping collective bargaining rights when he was running for governor. He lied to get into office, and now he's going to pursue the same old agenda which has gotten us where we are today.

Mr. Walker is going to fight for the corporate agenda - less money for workers, deregulation, and more perks for Wall Street.

The battle is going to play out in Ohio shortly w/ our new Wall Street government so I'm with the folks willing to take a stand!

-David

Kudos to the quote..

But, ya know, it ALSO justifies the US's role as the world's police. :D

Michale.....

To further clarify....

I favor stability over democracy in other countries where there is a vested national security interest and where the alternative to stability is a fanatical theocracy bent on killing Americans and other innocents...

Michale.....

Of course not..

Just trying to understand your line between stability and Democracy. In other countries, you favor stability.

I favor stability over democracy in other countries where there is a vested national security interest..

What about the U.S.?

If there were to come a time where the US faces such instability as we are seeing in Bahrain etc etc, then there might have to be some emergency decrees and/or martial law type arrangement..

But all that is laid out in our Constitution, so it is actually part of our democracy...

Michale.....

Would you establish continued Republican rule and eliminate the "elected by our citizens" part of our government if you could?

Yes / No / Maybe

Just trying to understand your line between stability and Democracy. In other countries, you favor stability. What about the U.S.? I'm honestly not trying to make a broad generalization about conservatives. Because I know several Tea Party folks who swing pretty far towards the Democracy side of things.

-David

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" - The Amazing Spiderman :)

I stated that what you were postulating as a conservative trait (IE A nanny state) is actually a liberal/progressive/lefty trait...

However, I would be willing to wager that a politician that thinks that he/she knows what is best for the American People is not a malady that is suffered by conservatives only...

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely"

Michale....

Do you think conservatives would establish continued Republican rule by eliminating the "elected by our citizens" part if they could?

Any thoughts? I thought you were the one who didn't like "equivocating" ... :)

-David

What's your opinion about how Wisconsin Democrats are short-circuiting democracy by running and hiding out of state instead of doing their jobs??

This is another one of those examples of when Democrats claim they are pro-democracy...

Until democracy is inconvenient or interferes with their agenda....

Michale.....

Actually, that sounds like the Liberal/Progressive perspective...

It's not conservatives that push a Nanny State perspective... It's liberals and progressives..

:D

Michale.....

Easy, easy. No need to get upset and change the subject. We're just talking here.

Let's say we have a Constitutional Republic, a version of a Democracy, where our leaders are elected by our citizens.

Do you think conservatives would establish continued Republican rule by eliminating the "elected by our citizens" part if they could?

My guess is yes. I think many would say that the people are too immature to elect leaders and make decisions - someone has to make the tough decisions for them. Not all, but many. And I think this is one of the differences between many conservatives and progressives/liberals. I know progressives and liberals would fight for Democracy (Constitutional Republic just doesn't sound worth fighting for :).

-David

We don't have a Democracy..

We have a Constitutional Republic...

Having said that, considering what's going on in Wisconsin, I don't think Democrats are in a position to talk about democracy as if they are any authority on it... :D

Michale......

-David

I would agree with that as well..

But the difference is that, by and large, Republicans acknowledge it and don't make any excuses for it.

Their attitude is, "that's the way it is, deal with it."

Democrats will spend hours lecturing you that being that way is bad and telling you that the Democratic Party is NOT that way, then turn around and do it anyways...

Michale.....

I would almost agree with that. I'd change it slightly to "Democrats are only concerned about Democracy when it is NOT a political liability."

But I think we're saying the same thing.

This is because if Democrats take this stance, I think they're afraid of being accused of weakness. But you're right, I'd like to see them advocate principles more and stand on them. I think long run it would gain them more respect.

I would also change the Republican version to:
"Republicans are only concerned about Democracy when it fits their agenda."

You only hear Republicans talk about freedom or Democracy when they have something else they want to accomplish. One example, justifying the Iraq War after the fact.

Well played, sir!
-David

Firebagging? (Urban Dictionary says it isn't defined yet.)

CW
"who are we to say that certain people don't "deserve" democracy?"

Well, certain people don't bother to vote. Certain people, even if they do vote, don't bother to get even a remotely accurate impression of what the candidates and parties say on the issues, let alone check it against their record. Certain people ... .

Oh, you meant certain foreign people.

We have been supporting Mubarak for 30 years... Democrats were in control for 4 years...

If Democrats were truly interested in Democracy over Stability, then they should have been making noises for the last 4 years... Or any other time they had control of Congress and/or the White House.

Democrats are only concerned about Democracy when it is a political liability NOT to feel so..

To be fair, the same thing can be said about Republicans...

But at least Republicans don't put on aires about it...

Michale.....

I don't follow your logic. The revolution just happened. And the administration tread a fine line because they didn't want to influence the outcome.

But if what you believe is truly the case, wouldn't you support Obama?

I think you just enjoy being "anti-liberal" :) As you told me about Sarah Palin when I asked why is she so popular with conservatives? Because liberals hate her.

-David

Democrats have been in power in DC for 4 years now..

Do you think that we would still be supporting Mubarak if Dems wanted Democracy over stability??

Michale.....

I don't see it. How so?

-David

Not at all. If someone is willing to support a principle I believe in, I don't care about party.

Awww gee.. Yer no fun at all! :D

I think its too bad all the conservatives flip-flopped on this issue to go back to "stability over Democracy".

And all the liberals flip-flopped to Democracy over stability...

Such as it is with politics...

Michale.....

Of course, that doesn't even begin to describe the problematic relationship that exist between the US government and the House of Saud.

It IS problematic, to be sure..

But it's also a logical arrangement borne out of necessity of the circumstances..

When I was in the military I was forced to work with some pretty unsavory groups and individuals. People that, if I saw them on the street, my hand would be on my weapon.

But we don't always get the choice of working on with angels...

The enemy of your enemy may not always be your friend. But they are usually a partner...

Michale.....

Not at all. If someone is willing to support a principle I believe in, I don't care about party.

I think its too bad all the conservatives flip-flopped on this issue to go back to "stability over Democracy".

-David

If there was ever a country that needed a Regime Change, it could be Saudi Arabia... I would say the same about Jordan, but the King's a die hard Trekker, so it's hard not to like him. He even appeared in an episode of STAR TREK:VOYAGER.. :D

Of course, that doesn't even begin to describe the problematic relationship that exist between the US government and the House of Saud.

I remembered Bush's words because I actually applauded them when he was speaking about the issue. I thought it was a good point -- who are we to say that certain people don't "deserve" democracy?

The only remaining Superpower... The world's Police Department..

Take your pick... :D

The Hamas issue proves conclusively the flaw in Bush's "Freedom Agenda"..

Sigh. OK, just how was Obama's handling (both public and behind the scenes with the Egyptian military) a "train wreck"? What, precisely, would you have had him do differently? How, exactly, would the outcome have been different if Obama had done what you wanted him to?

For one thing, get your ducks in a row.. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency from this administration??

Sure the situation is fluid and ever-changing. But the message from the Administration was all over the board.

"This guy's at 20,000 feet. Now he's at 5,000 feet. Now he's at 30,000 feet. He's all over the place. What an asshole."
-Unknown Air Traffic Controller, AIRPLANE

:D

Let's face it. Obama et al, like Mubarak, thought that the protest would just peeter out after a few days, so they backed their guy... When it became clear that the protesters weren't going to go, then Obama threw Mubarak under the bus..

You can bet that all of our allies are really examining their relationship with the US right now.

And our enemies are either A}laughing their asses off or 2}rubbing their hands gleefully at how the US is completely and utterly impotent..

Or both...

Um... in 1989 there was no President Reagan anymore. I'm just sayin'...

Touche' My bust.. :D

There are plenty of kleptocracies and outright totalitarian dictatorships which resulted from the fall of the Soviet Union.

Initially perhaps... But in the ensuing 20 years, it's clear that Democracy reigns in the former Soviet Union..

Except for Russia, of course.. :D

Oh, that brings up another point from another thread. You lit into an Obama spokesman (I forget who) for saying "the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organizatinon." Been meaning to ask about that -- was it a typo on your part? Because I would have thought you'd agree with that statement. All "secular" means is "not religious" so it seems to be something you'd agree with.

Yea, it was a typo... (wordo?? :D) I meant to say that Clapper, Obama's DNI, claimed that the MB was a secular organization..

For some reason, I have always thought that 'secular' meant 'religious'... Silly me..

Anyways, yea. The stupidity of Clapper's statement is that the MB clearly is as fanatical as Hamas or Hezbollah.. The fact that they haven't gotten a foothold in Egypt is due to Mubarak... That will likely change now....

As Egypt goes, so goes the entire Middle East...

Since you are quite obviously against Islamic governments in general, what do you think of Saudi Arabia? They've got the strictest Islamic laws of just about any country, Iran included. So where do you stand on the Saudis?

If there was ever a country that needed a Regime Change, it could be Saudi Arabia... I would say the same about Jordan, but the King's a die hard Trekker, so it's hard not to like him. He even appeared in an episode of STAR TREK:VOYAGER.. :D

But, SA is an ally and our last best hope for keeping Iran in check... So we make nice with them and send them billions in military hardware even though their government is a throwback from the Dark Ages...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
-Spock, STAR TREK II:The Wrath Of Kahn

Michale.....

Yeah, I heard someone being interviewed last night and they were talking about how they were communicating with someone in Yemen attending a demonstration, when suddenly the phone line went dead. They had cut off all communications. It was an ominous note, that's for sure.

Actually, what I've been thinking is that Egypt is uniquely positioned to perhaps become what Bush dreamed about in Iraq -- a stable, secular democracy which is friendly and open to the West. There's a few reasons why this could be possible: (1) they have no oil, (2) they rely so heavily on tourism, and (3) the Suez Canal. Economically, they pretty much have to be open to Westerners, otherwise their entire economy would collapse. They don't have massive oil profits to fall back on, or buy their people off with.

As for the American Empire, well, I hadn't heard that one but it's kind of laughable. You could make the case that our investment in Egypt's armed forces is what made this a bloodless revolution. In other words, American Empire created the backdrop for the uprising. Heh.

I also thought Obama performed admirably well walking the tightrope. It was a tough situation for the US to be in (given our history in Egypt), and I thought Obama did the right thing -- reach out to the army, and plan for a peaceful transition. I have yet to hear anyone kvetching about Obama's handling of the crisis have any better suggestion as to how Obama should have handled things better.

Which brings me to...

Michale -

That's actually a very good point. I finally found the Bush quote I was looking for, from this week's New Yorker magazine:

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?"

This became known as Bush's "Freedom Agenda," but the article goes on to state (as you correctly pointed out): "...a year later, Hamas displaced the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Bush never returned to his attacks on tolerating 'oppression for the sake of stability.'"

I remembered Bush's words because I actually applauded them when he was speaking about the issue. I thought it was a good point -- who are we to say that certain people don't "deserve" democracy?

Sigh. OK, just how was Obama's handling (both public and behind the scenes with the Egyptian military) a "train wreck"? What, precisely, would you have had him do differently? How, exactly, would the outcome have been different if Obama had done what you wanted him to?

Panetta was right, it just took an extra 12 hours before his prediction came to pass.

Um... in 1989 there was no President Reagan anymore. I'm just sayin'... and the track record of former Iron Curtain/Soviet Republic countries is a decidedly mixed one, I have to say. There are plenty of kleptocracies and outright totalitarian dictatorships which resulted from the fall of the Soviet Union. Not to say there aren't success stories as well, but like I said, it's a mixed picture at best.

What, exactly, would you have had Carter do, too, I'm interested? Invade and reinstate the Shah? The Islamists grabbed power so quickly that merely sending in advisors wouldn't have mattered more than a fart in a windstorm. And I have to point out to you the ironic phrasing of your own point "...leave Iran to the Iranians" -- um, who ELSE was it going to be "left" to? Heh. Maybe you meant to say "Islamists"?

Oh, that brings up another point from another thread. You lit into an Obama spokesman (I forget who) for saying "the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organizatinon." Been meaning to ask about that -- was it a typo on your part? Because I would have thought you'd agree with that statement. All "secular" means is "not religious" so it seems to be something you'd agree with.

Here's another question I've been meaning to ask you. Since you are quite obviously against Islamic governments in general, what do you think of Saudi Arabia? They've got the strictest Islamic laws of just about any country, Iran included. So where do you stand on the Saudis?

-CW

What should the US do??

In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down.. President Reagan (and President Bush after him) flooded the region with advisers and assistance. The advisers showed the leadership of those countries how to build the civil institutions that were vital to a vibrant and healthy democracy. Today those countries are flourishing democracies, pro-American through and through...

Contrast that to the Iranian debacle. When the Shah fell, President Carter just sat on his hands, preferring to leave Iran to the Iranians.

What happened??

The fanatical Muslim extremists took control and slaughtered any moderate who dared speak out...

Now Iran is a loose cannon, bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and committed to the total annihilation of Israel and her peoples...

Obama has been attempting to channel Reagan since the Shellacking Mid Terms...

Let's hope, in regards to Egypt, that Obama is a Reagan and not a Carter...

Michale.....

One has to wonder if ole George said that BEFORE or AFTER the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power.. :D

But I bet David is fit to be tied.. Arguing Bush's point has got to be a sore spot.. :D

President Obama has had a complicated few weeks as well, to be fair. Obama (and his spokespeople) have been issuing very closely parsed statements over the past few weeks, which at times seemed to fully back the protesters and at times seemed to defer to Mubarak's wishes. This, too, is fairly normal. Obama is the President of the United States, not some minor congressman or (even worse) some media pundit. His words carry a lot more weight and a lot more consequence than some random politico or television talking head. So he's been choosing his words very carefully over the course of the uprising.

You are far too kind, CW...

Obama's administration was a train wreck in the handling of the Eqyptian issue... Seems like every day there was a new statement coming from the Obama Administration that contradicted the previous statements... Between Hillary and Biden and Clapper and Panetta, it was a Marx Brother's routine...

"The whole Middle East is like an old Marx Brothers routine.. it's like Gadafi! God bless you! Assad? Nobody! Hussein? Nobody! You're outta here!"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

Michale.....

Actually, Chris, as I type this the regime in Yemen has already suppressed a popular uprising in the capitol.

Agreed on the role of Egypt's army as well as American military ties. For several days now I've been laughing at firebagging lefties intoning about "the end of American empire" -- as if the army would allow any regime to cut ties with us, or the 90,000 Americans living and working in Egypt won't be welcome back, or our tourist dollars will refused. If anything, this will deepen the role of the United States in Egypt. The same is true for everyone, left and right, saying Obama has "failed" in some way; these folks don't know what they're talking about. Obama had a very fine tightrope to walk and did it without falling down.