Greater Greater Washington

Links


Breakfast links: Storm stories


Photo by brownpau on Flickr.
Sandy hits the Northeast hard: At least 40 people have died as a result of Hurricane Sandy, and millions are without power. In the DC area, 115,000 still have no electricity. (Post)

Climate change does cause Sandy-like storms: The Presidential campaign has ignored climate change, but Sandy reminded everyone; it's indeed fair to cite climate change for the kind of weather we've had. (Post)

Pepco does a bit better: The much-maligned Pepco performed better in this week's hurricane than the summer's derecho. Total outages among Pepco customers peaked below 42,000, compared with 483,000 in June's storm. (DCist, Post)

Why Sandy didn't flood Bloomingdale: Bloomingdale actually didn't flood during Sandy. Is the flooding problem fixed? No, it's just that regular drainage could handle the sustained, less-intense rain we had, but not sudden heavy downpours. (City Paper)

Teleworking: why just in storms?: One-third of local federal government employees telework during storms like Sandy. But less than 8% do so on regular days. Why can't more telework in good weather? (Post)

Region still faces risk of flooding: The region is returning to normal today, having avoided the worst effects of Sandy. But waterways which received millions of gallons of sewage overflow still pose a health risk, especially if they overflow. (Post)

More storm stuff: Though the subway closed, New York's dollar vans stayed in operation during Sandy. (WSJ) ... Rock Creek Parkway and Beach Drive flooded. (DCist) ... The storm caused a serious blood-donation shortage. (WAMU)

Parks get more private money: Donations are on the rise to fund urban parks, including some record gifts to major cities' most significant parks, but many more parks remain woefully underfunded. (NAC)

Housing recovery doesn't reach everywhere: Some metropolitan areas, including DC, have housing prices almost double 2000 levels, while many other metros are still below their prices in 2000. (Atlantic Cities)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

Comments

Add a comment »

"fair to cite climate change" link is broken.

by goldfish on Oct 31, 2012 8:42 am • linkreport

The first Post article has an extra "-klein" at the end of the address so it cannot find the article. The link should be: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/29/yes-hurricane-sandy-is-a-good-reason-to-worry-about-climate-change/.

by selxic on Oct 31, 2012 8:43 am • linkreport

The conclusion of the climate change article is basically inconclusive.

by selxic on Oct 31, 2012 8:48 am • linkreport

Heh heh. "Working" from home.

by iaom on Oct 31, 2012 9:18 am • linkreport

What if you telework but lose power all day? Is that excused?

by drumz on Oct 31, 2012 9:22 am • linkreport

@drumz; my understanding that if you are required to telework, and lose power, then you will be charged leave.

by charlie on Oct 31, 2012 9:25 am • linkreport

Climate change has been ignored except when Romney took the time to make fun of Obama for attempting to do something about it through our energy policy and car gas milage.

by Thayer-D on Oct 31, 2012 9:38 am • linkreport

Exactly @ Thayer-D. It makes more sense for Obama to continue to do things under the radar than be skewed by the denialists, especially given the employment problems. Things the EPA has been doing, the car mileage improvements and the investments in mass transit and intercity rail are all significant.

by H Street LL on Oct 31, 2012 9:43 am • linkreport

"Why can't more telework during sunny weather?"

.... because agencies won't allow it. My agency limits me to not more than 2 telework days per pay period; despite the fact that most of the work I perform is on the computer in-office or not.

However, a lot of Federal employee's jobs are not able to be done over telework. Telework is not a miracle grow cure for office shortages, traffic congestion, etc. Stop trying to make it a fix all!

by Matthew on Oct 31, 2012 9:44 am • linkreport

I also don't get the obsession with telework as an everyday thing. It's a great thing for continuity of operations and for some day to day tasks.

But if we're also going to extol the virtues of the city and the benefits of concentration of workers, agglomeration of business, and the general innovative and beneficial crowding that happens in cities, then telework is not the answer.

by Alex B. on Oct 31, 2012 9:49 am • linkreport

Spent the past two days teleworking. I was going crazy by the end of the second day after having spent pretty much all my time in one spot, my apt. Not sure I could do it on a regular all the time basis, need a different environment and people also working around me.

I think teleworking is something we can add to the mix of "transportation" options but I agree that it's not a cure all.

by jj on Oct 31, 2012 9:59 am • linkreport

Presidential campaign has ignored climate change...

Hate the framing of this.

We always blame "the politicians", but it's the shitty electorate that is to blame. 50% + 1 of the US population is beyond apathetic about the issue--they are actively hostile to the question. Politics is the art of the possible; and it's the voters who are the weak link in the system.

by oboe on Oct 31, 2012 10:00 am • linkreport

oboe

I don't agree that 50%+1 is actively hostile. I think the survey data would show that most are apathetic, and its mostly the tea party minority, plus those with a direct stake in hydrocarbon production, who are actively hostile - and that there MAY be political benefit to adopting a progressive position on climate change - depending on just who is a swing voter, which activist minority is more motivated, what the mood of the apathetic is, etc. Clearly BHO has judged that whatever is to be gained in say Colorado or New Hampshire, its not worth chancing Ohio. I think thats less a statement about the electorate overall, than about a particular electoral college strategy. Also of course they hope that "green energy investments" and "CAFE standards" will serve as dog whistles to the aware progressives, without riling up undecideds in southeast Ohio or SW virginia.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 10:23 am • linkreport

The problem with relating climate change to individual events like Witch Sandy is that climate change is a statistical phenomenon which works with probabilities for related events, and not for certainties with individual events.

The problem is that the public (and many politicians) do not understand that because of the model used, you can never relate climate change to an individual event.

You can relate climate change to a series of events, such as Witch Sandy, the derechio, the Snowpocalypse and other record-breaking weather events.

I wish that I knew a better way of explaining this.

by Jasper on Oct 31, 2012 10:23 am • linkreport

Of course "climate change" affects hurricanes, but that's just coded language for the concept known as 'global warming.' The ties are less tenuous when you say the second one. Folks seem to live in a fairyland belief that there were never horrible storms prior to Katrina, Sandy, etc, but it's a fictional belief. The earth has also warmed and cooled before. Think more subtropical in the DC latitude at one point and nearly covered by a continental ice shelf at another. What we think we know is based on a very small segment of time and we're guestimating at best. It's certainly possible that we're contributing to a warming trend, but proving the extent to which or that we weren't already warming isn't really possible with such data.

by T1 on Oct 31, 2012 10:45 am • linkreport

"It's certainly possible that we're contributing to a warming trend, but proving the extent to which or that we weren't already warming isn't really possible with such data. "

its dead certain we are contributing. At least 70%, as much as 100% (IE its quite possible there would be zero non human caused warming at this time).

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 10:51 am • linkreport

"I also don't get the obsession with telework as an everyday thing. It's a great thing for continuity of operations and for some day to day tasks.
But if we're also going to extol the virtues of the city and the benefits of concentration of workers, agglomeration of business, and the general innovative and beneficial crowding that happens in cities, then telework is not the answer"

Are we extoling those virtues for their own sake? Or are we concerned with simply being realistic about their benefits, and also trying achieve changes that reduce the external impacts of the automobile, especially the GHG impacts?

I want more teleworking for the same reason I want more high MPG cars - I want fewer GHGs (and teleworking unlike high MPG vehicles also addresses congestion/infrastructure issues). Now if that means more low density residential development, with resulting more auto usage on noncommute trips, we need to address that. If teleworking means more people in WVa and fewer in Logan Circle, thats a problem. If it means more people in WVa, and fewer in Burke or Ashburn, or even fewer in Reston or Tysons Corner, it may not be such a problem (IE it may not increase auto mode share for non commute trips all that much)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 11:01 am • linkreport

@oboe-The most recent survey I heard (on NPR) said that roughly 74% of Americans believe in Climate Change, but only 52% (or 54%??) think it's man made. One big problem (for "conservatives) was that Al Gore was the first to really spread the word to the masses, and thus politicized it. Also, the Democrats have always pushed the "green" angle of it, where they should have been pushing on the economic and global security side of the issue. "Green" isn't going to bring in conservatives, the economy and national security will.

@Jasper-You may want to read this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/30/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-sandy/

by thump on Oct 31, 2012 11:13 am • linkreport

The notion that politicians should avoid discussing issues to avoid politicizing them is silly - has the deficit become politicized because the Tea Party worries about it? Climate scientists have been portrayed as "leftists" with political motivations - the politicizing of climate change was inevitable whatever Al Gore did or did not do.

And the problem with pushing only the national security angle is that it leads to a focus on domestic hydrocarbon production. Unless you focus on, say, the national secucrity consequences of warming - but theres been ample discussion of the economic consuences of warming - that only plays to be people who believe in anthropogenic warming.

Whats caused confusion is that yout cited first - the denialist position that claims to not be denialist - "I believe in global warming, just not in human caused warming" The denialist industry has confused a genuine uncertainty about the EXTENT of human caused warming (60 to 70% human caused, vs 90 to 100% human caused) with uncertainty about whether there is any human caused warming - which is not an uncertainty among scientists - its an uncertainty in the public, that the denialist campaign has created.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 11:26 am • linkreport

Misleading to say 115,000 without power "in DC area," when the linked article notes that most of the outages are in B'more metro.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2012 11:33 am • linkreport

Nitpicking, but the photo associated with this post is from March 2010, not Hurricane Sandy.

by Allie on Oct 31, 2012 11:52 am • linkreport

Technically, I am allowed to telework up to 3 days a week, or 5 days per pay. And that was all swell until new boss man entered the picture. New boss man does not believe that work can be done at home, so he prepares an agenda for you while you're at home. It's at least 50% more work than you would ever be expected to complete on a normal day in the office. The agenda is more like something you would see if you were running behind on a deadline. So, that makes telework unpleasant.

Then, new boss man, despite giving you this jam-packed agenda (yes, he checks up on your progress throughout the day - heaven forbid if you've gone to pee and not taken your computer with you, you just got "caught" away from work - and the following day to make sure you got it all done) insists that telework makes your life so easy and breezy that there's no reason that you should need time off for personal items. Need to go to the dentist? Why didn't you just take care of that on your telework day? Need to get your water heater fixed? You can handle that on your next telework day. Vacation? But you just teleworked for 2 days this week!

So, basically, we all stopped teleworking because we like doing a reasonable amount of work in a day, we like being able to use our leave for things we both want and need to do, and we don't like being supervised like 5-year-olds. Lots of my friends at the State Department seem to have good luck with teleworking, but the people I know in almost every other agency besides State and many private-sector companies (with the general exception of tech and tech-oriented companies) have either boss or coworker issues with teleworking (coworker being the guy who either can't telework because he's still running Windows 97 or because he never gets anything done at home, and whines all the time that everyone can telework but him, and so the boss either ends all telework or you get so annoyed hearing about it that you decide its not worth it anymore).

by Ms. D on Oct 31, 2012 11:54 am • linkreport

Obama has had a mixed record on a "serious" discussion about climate change. As w/most things, people see it from their respective political angle.

The notion that politicians should avoid discussing issues to avoid politicizing them is silly - has the deficit become politicized because the Tea Party worries about it?

Sure, it might be silly. But it might also leave you w/a loss election. Part of the reason Obamacare is such a mixed bag is because it was politicized..on both sides. Same goes w/the deficit. Both played a political game and were concerned about the repercussions. "Politics" often leads to inaction...most demonstrated by this administration.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 12:10 pm • linkreport

If continuity of operations is the issue, it's important to discuss telework as it does enable such.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 12:17 pm • linkreport

Some of us also hate teleworking. I don't like having my work in my home-there needs to be a division. I have no space for an office or even a desk in my small home. And I know I don't do much work at home--I get way more done in the office. Our agency encourages telework but also limits it to 3 days per pay-period. Because we have so many (95% necessary) meetings, we still have Tue, Wed, and Thu to have those meetings.

by rdhd on Oct 31, 2012 1:00 pm • linkreport

Part of the reason Obamacare is such a mixed bag is because it was politicized..on both sides.

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of the argument that a political battle to implement a change in public policy was "politicized...on both sides". The only way to avoid politicizing issues is to not actually ever even attempt to enact your parties agenda. Or perhaps the implication is that, if only Obama and the Democrats had been a bit more deferential, we'd have passed universal healthcare framework with broad bipartisan support?

It's the same nonsense that asserts that, had Gore only managed not to politicize the environment, the GOP would've been totally out in front on these matters, and we'd be well on our way to a carbon neutral economy.

Perhaps the Democrats should just adopt--wholesale--the GOP's policy positions as a way of leveraging their opposition in a form of 12-dimensional ju-jitsu.

by oboe on Oct 31, 2012 1:12 pm • linkreport

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of the argument that a political battle to implement a change in public policy was "politicized...on both sides".

Of course you don't. Politicization of DC's efforts in Education "reform" led to its champion being ousted. Suggesting that "death" panels and medicare reform would "send grandma to her grave." "Rich pay more taxes, 'putting ya'll back in chains,' 'welfare president' etc are all examples of how much needed changes in public policy can be railroaded by politicizing the issues.

The class divide has led to inaction of important policies and this lands mostly at the feet of dems.

Education reform continues much unnoticed in DC because it is no longer a political tool which shows that you actually can avoid jumping into political wars and enact your parties agenda.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 1:52 pm • linkreport

Education reform in DC is being done administratively - to a great extent thats exactly what is happening with climate change at the national level - passage of CAFE standards and other things that can be done without legislation. Of course there is a GOP led war on the EPA - theres no equivalent attack on Mayor Greys education policies because there isnt an opposition party in DC. If depoliticizing means reducing the US GOP to the status of the District GOP or the Statehood Greens, thats a tall order I think.

Also changing healthcare meant new legislation. And its been political since the 1940's. Politics is political. Sad, but true. yes there is some sloganeering around, but avoiding the sloganeering wouldnt make things not political.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 1:58 pm • linkreport

"are all examples of how much needed changes in public policy can be railroaded by politicizing the issues."

Hmm? I thought being "railroaded" meant being pushed through, not being blocked.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 1:59 pm • linkreport

I'm glad that's your experience, rdhd, and that you have the option not to telework. I guess I got spoiled when I was in a previous job and could do most of my work whenever I felt like it - first in the office, and then once we got a new system, anyWHERE I wanted. I still came in for at least a few hours at least 3 days a week during normal business hours, both because there were some items I could only handle at the office and because I liked my coworkers and enjoyed seeing them, but man it was fantastic to just be able to log on and run spreadsheets and file reports whenever I felt up to it (within reason, I had about 15 reports that were my responsibility, each with a deadline...so long as they were done by the deadline, I could do them whenever I felt up to it).

I also enjoyed teleworking before it became a hassle. I also don't have a desk, but my laptop is plenty comfortable to use on the couch or at the kitchen table. Being able to log on 30-40 minutes earlier, by virtue of not having a commute, was great, especially when I got to log out those same 30-40 minutes early and, hey, I was already home! Plus, my office doesn't have windows, and my house does, so I felt way more alert on the days I spent at home. Personally, I am plenty productive at home. I'm young enough that I spent virtually no time in the library in college...almost everything I needed to do could be done first on my desktop at home and then on my laptop wherever. By the time I finished grad school, I was doing most of my thesis writing on the college green, which had just been set up for WiFi that year.

You certainly shouldn't be forced to telework if you feel you're more productive at the office, barring emergency situation where work needs done and the office cannot be accessed. But giving the rest of us the REASONABLE option to do so will make your commute more pleasant! And, yes, I'm fresh out of things to do at work today. I just finished 3 big projects and my boss is too tied up with some major stuff of his own to give me any special projects that might need coverage. So I'm intermittently putzing around on a few small tasks, answering emails, planning my next round of projects, and trawling the interwebs. Yes, I would have previously opted to telework on a day like today, but was afraid that my next round of projects - due between January and February, would suddenly become a "priority," and since I'm just now planning them, that would make today more stressful than sitting sullenly in a dark cube pretending to be productive, where I can be "trusted."

by Ms. D on Oct 31, 2012 2:17 pm • linkreport

Or perhaps the implication is that, if only Obama and the Democrats had been a bit more deferential, we'd have passed universal healthcare framework with broad bipartisan support?

I think the implication that we would have at a minimum passed the Republican healthcare reforms that the Dems generally agreed with but thought didn't go far enough. So, less change would have occurred but it would have had some bi-partisan support. Let's bear in mind that Bush passed one of the largest expansions in government healthcare in history with Medicare Part D. So, it's not like all Republicans oppose an expanded role for government in healthcare.

by Falls Church on Oct 31, 2012 2:24 pm • linkreport

theres no equivalent attack on Mayor Greys education policies because there isnt an opposition party in DC.

There was an opposition party in DC to oppose Fenty's education efforts either. But he is no longer mayor, correct? Because he lost the political fight, correct? Which reiterates my point about the cons of politicizing policy.

If depoliticizing means reducing the US GOP to the status of the District GOP or the Statehood Greens, thats a tall order I think. I agree and don't see "who" made such an argument.

Hmm? I thought being "railroaded" meant being pushed through, not being blocked.

Which proves that you understood my point but felt the need to dig in further.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 2:25 pm • linkreport

@ thump/oboe:The most recent survey I heard (on NPR) said that roughly 74% of Americans believe in Climate Change, but only 52% (or 54%??) think it's man made.

My pet peeve is that these questions are wrong. One does not "believe" scientific models or not. Believing is for god, allah or whichever deity one prefers. One agrees with them or has arguments against them. The problem with agreeing or disagreeing is that you need to know and understand the model.

@Jasper-You may want to read this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/30/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-sandy/

Yeah, I saw that. They trying to bridge the gap I am talking about. What they're saying is that the probability is so high that is pretty much a certainty. But the problem that statistics just don't predict certainties remains. It also becomes a question how high a probability must be before you call it a certainty. Mathematicians, who are in charge of statistics, would rather not go there, because it gets nasty quickly.

There just is a problem that the language that comes with statistics is hard to translate into every-day language. IN other words, the general public is not familiar enough with statistics to understand statistical statements.

It happens all the time. Look at all the political polling at the moment and all the chatter by pundits. Do you ever see a pundit talk about the fact that most polls numbers are within each other's margin of error, and therefor useless?

48% vs 47% sounds like one is ahead just a little bit, and that is a good news story. Problem is that the margin of error on most polls is about 3-4% and that 48/47 is therefore equal to 47/48% Or even 51/43%.

by Jasper on Oct 31, 2012 2:36 pm • linkreport

"There was an opposition party in DC to oppose Fenty's education efforts either. But he is no longer mayor, correct? Because he lost the political fight, correct? Which reiterates my point about the cons of politicizing policy."

At most it shows that SOME policies can be achieved administratively without being politicized - not that all can. And I think Ms Rhee's problem was more that she was unnecessarily abrasive - you seem to be equating "abrasiveness" and "politicizing" I don't think thats what politicizing means at all - perhaps I am simply confused by your choice of words.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 2:37 pm • linkreport

"I think the implication that we would have at a minimum passed the Republican healthcare reforms that the Dems generally agreed with but thought didn't go far enough."

That IS what Obamacare was - GOP reforms that did not go far enough. Or do you mean passing the goodies (like no limits on prior conditions) but without the mandate - the consensus I saw among health care analysts was that that simply would not work.

"Let's bear in mind that Bush passed one of the largest expansions in government healthcare in history with Medicare Part D. So, it's not like all Republicans oppose an expanded role for government in healthcare"

The national political scene changed dramatically from 2005 to 2009. In particular the national GOP decided that amending legislation to make it closer to the GOP point of view was less important than harming BHO politically - that is the context for all claims that BHO failed to achieve his promised bipartisanship.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 2:41 pm • linkreport

At most it shows that SOME policies can be achieved administratively without being politicized - not that all can?

I never quantified the number either way because I didn't think it was necessary. It's why I didn't think Oboe "really" believes that there is NEVER a good reason "not" to politicize things. It was ok to build in obvious assumptions.

And I think Ms Rhee's problem was more that she was unnecessarily abrasive - you seem to be equating "abrasiveness" and "politicizing" Yes, she was both abrasive and politically ignorant. As the CEO, Fenty is responsible for education reform becoming politicized. He allowed Rhee to appear on that national cover as the "Grim Sweeper." Her political ignorance. Fenty's continued politicization.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 2:56 pm • linkreport

Im confused Hog.

I think that climate change, an issue for which any serious policy impacts lots of powerful national interests (and which either involve new legislation or changes via exec bodies like EPA that are under congressional scrutiny, often partisan) - interests capable of expressing their viewpoint through a multitude of media, through astroturfing, and through their influence on national political parties, is inevitably political. Thats apart from Al Gore, from anyone choosing to be abrasive or not. When powerful interests clash, politics results. Period.

I am not sure how the fact that education reform has gone more smoothly under Grey than under Fenty speaks to that. The DC consensus that DC schools need change is much wider than the national consensus that policy must address human caused climate change. And to the extent there is still opposition to certain changes (from the teachers union?) that opposition has far fewer resources, and far fewer political levers, to oppose Mayor Grey than the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, et al have to oppose ANY steps (including purely administrative steps) on climate change.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 3:19 pm • linkreport

The national political scene changed dramatically from 2005 to 2009...The national GOP decided that amending legislation to make it closer to the GOP point of view was less important than harming BHO politically - that is the context for all claims that BHO failed to achieve his promised bipartisanship.

Obama didn't take office until 2008 and dems had the house and senate during most of that time. The claims that BHO failed to be bipartisan have been proven true through the series of reporting on the matter. Rahm Emanuel was one of his biggest hindrances to getting stuff done since his attitude was "Fyck 'em, we have the votes." So the claims aren't w/o merit.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 3:24 pm • linkreport

@Jasper, I agree with you completely.

by Tina on Oct 31, 2012 3:28 pm • linkreport

@Jasper-"One does not "believe" scientific models or not. Believing is for god, allah or whichever deity one prefers.

I agree, and that was exactly the point the commentator they had on spoke to. You can't say you believe part of what science is saying, but disregard some other part.

by thump on Oct 31, 2012 3:51 pm • linkreport

It's all well and good to point at the usual suspects for inaction on climate change, but the bulk of the problem is the vast majority of the American people that will steadfastly object (and vote against) any deliberate increase in gasoline and electricity prices.

Look at how Gov Brown had to take action on California gas prices a month or so ago.

by Kolohe on Oct 31, 2012 3:53 pm • linkreport

Im confused Hog.

I'm confused that you're confused. I gave my examples of how politicizing an issue can end up as a negative. I don't see "opposition" to climate change in the same vein as opposition to Obamacare or education reform for that matter.

There is very little about those of us who were painted as anti-education reform that has changed between then and now. Pretty much identical policies between the two administration. But there is a huge difference in strategy. The Gray administration has decided to NOT politicize the issue as had been the case under Fenty. So you won't see the same level of acrimony.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 3:57 pm • linkreport

"Obama didn't take office until 2008 and dems had the house and senate during most of that time."

Do you mean from 2006 to 2009, or from 2009 to 2010? Are you blaming Obama for the limited ability of Dems to pass things over a Bush veto in 2007? Or are you onto the tired meme that BHO could pass whatever he wanted in 2009 (and PART of 2010, before Sen Kennedy passed away). In fact in that period the GOP in the Senate was solid against any compromise on stimulus or health care. Which meant the Dems needed EVERY single Dem (and independent) vote, to overcome the filibuster. Which meant a very difficult time cobbling together legislation.

" The claims that BHO failed to be bipartisan have been proven true through the series of reporting on the matter. "

What reporting is that?

"Rahm Emanuel was one of his biggest hindrances to getting stuff done since his attitude was "Fyck 'em, we have the votes." So the claims aren't w/o merit."

Rahm may have used bad language, but the fact is they compromised already in what they did, and the GOP made clear they were only interested in BHOs defeat, and were uninterested in any compromise.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 4:00 pm • linkreport

Hog -

do you think that a politician could discuss education reform without being abrasive like Ms Rhee? Cause what you responded to earlier was this

"The notion that politicians should avoid discussing issues to avoid politicizing them is silly"

http://mayor.dc.gov/page/mayors-welcome
"Our education reforms are starting to yield positive results and businesses are eager to stake their claim in the District."

AFAICT Mayor Gray DOES talk about the need for education reform. Just as Al Gore talked about the need for pricing carbon, and as Pres Obama talked about the need for health care reform. In each case there was an issue, it was intrinsically political, a politician spoke about it. That Ms Rhee was heated in her rhetoric and Mayor Fenty would have done well to rein in that rhetoric, does not argue against what I said above.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 4:12 pm • linkreport

"Some of us also hate teleworking."

I couldn't agree more. I will schedule telework if I need to be home to meet a contractor, but otherwise, I prefer the camaraderie (and gentle peer-pressure toward productivity) of the office.

That said, I commute by bike, so my teleworking doesn't result much in emissions savings (particularly if the office building will be open anyway).

by Jacques Arsenault on Oct 31, 2012 4:18 pm • linkreport

Do you mean from 2006 to 2009, or from 2009 to 2010? Are you blaming Obama for the limited ability of Dems to pass things over a Bush veto in 2007?

You said, "The national political scene changed dramatically from 2005 to 2009. And I responded that Obama and the dems had control over the all halls of gov't during most of that time. Obama wasn't in office in 2007 so I don't know how anyone could reasonably blame him...in retrospect.

Or are you onto the tired meme that BHO could pass whatever he wanted in 2009 (and PART of 2010, before Sen Kennedy passed away)

Nope, I'm on the factual meme that contrary to the democratic meme, republicans were NOT the monkey wrench in every Obama plan.

What reporting is that?

WOW! You've never heard reports that Obama hadn't built a relationship w/those outside his inner circle? That his relationship w/the business community was hampered by Valerie Jarret and his team? That his relationship w/republicans was stymied by Rahm Emanuel? I'm sorta surprised.

and the GOP made clear they were only interested in BHOs defeat, and were uninterested in any compromise

And when did they make that clear? Surely you're not referring to the oft-repeated meme that republicans were determined not to work w/the president under no circumstances?

Here's a suggestion: Read veteran journalist, Bob Woodward's, recent book, "The Price of Politics." Consuming it (and similar reporting) will hopefully offer you insight on these dealing from a "behind the scenes" aspect.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 4:26 pm • linkreport

do you think that a politician could discuss education reform without being abrasive like Ms Rhee?

Sure, see Kaya Henderson and Vincent Gray.

Cause what you responded to earlier was this:..."The notion that politicians should avoid discussing issues to avoid politicizing them is silly."

And since no one ever suggested such..the "notion" presented here was silly in the first place.

That Ms Rhee was heated in her rhetoric and Mayor Fenty would have done well to rein in that rhetoric, does not argue against what I said above.

Maybe not. But it does argue in favor for what I said. That is, politicizing policy can have serious consequences. Rhee's tactics and Fenty's refusal to rein her in..led to a serious consequence....his ousting. Yet, education reform (the politicized issue) is still ongoing and apparently at a respectable rate.

I'm not sure why you're now the second person here to suggest that one of us claimed that you should NEVER "talk about" politically dangerous issues.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 4:39 pm • linkreport

"And since no one ever suggested such."

Thump said the following

"One big problem (for "conservatives) was that Al Gore was the first to really spread the word to the masses, and thus politicized it. "

that is what I was responding to.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 4:43 pm • linkreport

I'm confused that you're confused. I gave my examples of how politicizing an issue can end up as a negative. I don't see "opposition" to climate change in the same vein as opposition to Obamacare or education reform for that matter.

Your argument seems to be, "It would be nice if everyone would agree on things. Then we could take action on things in a more effective way."

I couldn't agree more. Why must everyone be so disagreeable? If only they'd do exactly what I say and stop politicizing every little thing.

by oboe on Oct 31, 2012 4:46 pm • linkreport

Read Scheibers review of Woodward in TNR. I don't trust Woodward on this.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 4:49 pm • linkreport

Maybe not. But it does argue in favor for what I said. That is, politicizing policy can have serious consequences. Rhee's tactics and Fenty's refusal to rein her in..led to a serious consequence....his ousting. Yet, education reform (the politicized issue) is still ongoing and apparently at a respectable rate.

If Gray is voted out after his first term, I will take this as proof positive that he "politicized" education. The WTU is certainly no great supporter. Many, many DC residents think his policies have had a negative impact on the schools.

That's the problem with defining "politicization" by the presence or absence of any political opposition. It's nice-sounding nonsense.

by oboe on Oct 31, 2012 4:51 pm • linkreport

Read Scheibers review of Woodward in TNR. I don't trust Woodward on this.

Woodward is what people without a clue think of when they think of getting the "inside scoop."

by oboe on Oct 31, 2012 4:53 pm • linkreport

Your argument seems to be, "It would be nice if everyone would agree on things. Then we could take action on things in a more effective way."

If that's what you take away from the clear points I made, then, oh well. I'm not at all surprised...even in the face of CLEAR evidence.

Read Scheibers review of Woodward in TNR. I don't trust Woodward on this.

No need to argue that either. Woodward reports one thing...Scheibers says it's old news and that Woodward proves that he bought into the beltway narrative that Obama was disengaged and the entire book was biased against Obama.

Woodward is what people without a clue think of when they think of getting the "inside scoop.

Sure, and the articles from key players refuting what Woodward says is where again? Since I obviously don't have a clue, where is your reporting? Where is your link to an interview from the Obama administration denying what happened in this biased book? Don't have any right?

But contrary to what you post here, Scheiber credits (for the clueless among us) "Woodward is famous for his distinct lack of slant. His books are scrupulously reported but annoyingly literal. At their worst, they read more like stenography than fully hatched stories

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 5:06 pm • linkreport

And schieber goes on to explain why previously unslanted Woodward is slanted against Obama.

I dont need insider stuff. I was following the news then, and I saw what the GOP was saying. In public, and how they were acting. and guess what, now, after fighting against additional stimulus, and taking the economy to the brink, they are blaming Obama for the consequences. Exactly as expected.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 5:10 pm • linkreport

http://www.slate.com/search.html?q=woodward

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 5:12 pm • linkreport

And schieber goes on to explain why previously unslanted Woodward is slanted against Obama.

Yes he does. And concludes that Woodward, "considers Obama unworthy of the presidency." This is his statement of fact against Woodward and his motives.

I dont need insider stuff. I was following the news then,

Problem explained. How else would you learn how sausage is made w/o seeing how it's done? I follow the news too. In fact, more than anyone I know. However, instead of relying just on my favorite news channel, I read books and the entire compendium of research material out there.

Some of us prefer to have "insider" stuff and use that as mechanism for shaping our various positions. Some others, like you..would rather hear it from Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Lawrence or that god awful host, Ed.

But Alas, to each his/her own.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 5:20 pm • linkreport

"How else would you learn how sausage is made w/o seeing how it's done? "

On the one hand you can look at what is said and done in public (and no, I don't follow cable news)

On the other hand, you don't know how its made from a book by a journalist (not a historian) who A. may be biased and B. Is probably manipulated by sources.

You want to use books, wait a generation.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 5:40 pm • linkreport

http://www.mrc.org/node/41210

on the one hand it looks like he agrees with what I said wrt the Congressional GOP, and on the other, he appears to have the Very Serious Person view of economics, rather than one actually based on macroeconomics.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 31, 2012 5:44 pm • linkreport

On the other hand, you don't know how its made from a book by a journalist (not a historian) who A. may be biased and B. Is probably manipulated by sources.

We can obviously agree to disagree on whether Bob Woodward is unreliable source. You and Oboe think he isn't. I think otherwise. However, a lot of what he said has already been said before. And since it bears repeating, no one is disputing "what" he's saying but I imagine that if he's as off base and unreliable as the two of you suggest, why haven't the WH operatives call for a retraction or dismissal of the quotes Woodward attributed to them?

I believe the reaction to Woodward is based more on the backlash anyone faces when "seen" as being critical of Obama.

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 8:49 pm • linkreport

Or are you onto the tired meme that BHO could pass whatever he wanted in 2009 (and PART of 2010, before Sen Kennedy passed away).

Dems only had 60 votes in the Senate for a few weeks, between the seating of Al Franken and the absence and death of ted Kennedy (and Robert Byrd, for that matter).

It is a fallacy that Dems had all two branches of government for 2 years. They had it for a few weeks (that were mostly recess).

by Jasper on Oct 31, 2012 8:58 pm • linkreport

on the one hand it looks like he agrees with what I said ...and on the other, he appears to have the Very Serious Person view of economics, rather than one based on macroeconomics.

I wish we could discuss parts of the book you disagreed with but I'm "assuming" you haven't read it? He says both..in the book. He talks about how: Republicans said they would not vote in favor of a tax increase under ANY circumstance, or, house dems refusing to support any sort of entitlement reform.

There's enough in there for both sides. But Scheiber's most severe critique of Bob's bias is when he says, The voice Woodward affects is exasperated and petty, like a spouse several decades into a loveless marriage. “It was classic Obama,” he writes, summing up a July 2011 press conference. “You had to listen very carefully and read the transcript several times to spot the inconsistencies.” He delights in catching Obama in tiny lies.

The takeaway? Woodward is petty because he points out "tiny" inconsistencies in a politician's (in this case Obama) statements. So this is why Bob went from being Woodward "famous for his distinct lack of slant," to " telegraphsing his contempt from the get-go.

And this is your more "objective" source...

by HogWash on Oct 31, 2012 9:23 pm • linkreport

I could telework during the storm in large part by prioritizing that work that could be done from home. But there is a lot of work that I need to be on site to do - because that is where certain hardware is. Also, there are big advantages to being in the same room as someone else. I can't tell you how much critical information I learned by overhearing a conversation.

Didn't anyone see "Wall Street"? What would've happened to Blue Star Airlines if Bud had worked from home? He wouldn't have been pulled into that meeting - and let's face it, that's how the real world works. Teleworking is great when it fits, but it's not a way for most people to do their job well.

by David C on Nov 1, 2012 1:18 pm • linkreport

What we think we know is based on a very small segment of time and we're guestimating at best.

No, we have all kinds of data from the past. Massive amounts. Like enough to fill the Library of Congress hundreds of times over again. Everything from ice core samples and tree rings, to air trapped in amber and the composition of oyster shells. And it all points to the same thing - we're adding carbon to our atmosphere at a massive and unprecedented rate.

Global Warming...Climate change...those are just sympoms. Here's what's really happening, we're changing our atmosphere. Everything else flows from that.

You have to dispute one of these things to dispute man-made global warming

1. We're burning massive amounts of carbon-based fuels like gas and coal
2. That behavior is adding substantial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
4. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are known to cause ground temperatures to increase by reducing the nighttime radiation of heat.

That's it. If you can dispute one of those, you win. But you can't dispute any of them. Everything else is just noise.

by David C on Nov 1, 2012 1:25 pm • linkreport

"Politics" often leads to inaction...most demonstrated by this administration.

True, this adminstration did nothing about Health care reform or reducing the deficit. Except for Obamacare and the law that created the fiscal cliff that is.

The claims that BHO failed to be bipartisan have been proven true through the series of reporting on the matter.

No. It hasn't. BHO tried desperately to get Republicans to sign on to the Stimulus (and did get some in the Senate) but as Michael Grunwald documents in "The New New Deal" House Republicans had decided that there would be no deal. No matter what was offered. "We’re going to do to you what you did to us in 2006" one Republican staffer said. 100% opposition was their plan.

David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Gingrich tells a story about meeting at the Capitol Hill Club on Inauguration Day and helping hatch the strategy of making Obama look bad. And the way to do that was not to cooperate with him. BHO ran on the promise of being bipartisan and changing the tone of Washington - Republicans had the power to make him look like a liar. And that's what they did.

by David C on Nov 1, 2012 1:48 pm • linkreport

but as Michael Grunwald documents in "The New New Deal" House Republicans had decided that there would be no deal.

Well since Bob Woodward reported the same thing, I imagine that Grunwald too is an illegitimate source.

BHO ran on the promise of being bipartisan and changing the tone of Washington - Republicans had the power to make him look like a liar. And that's what they did.

There were times in which he did..and those in which he didn't. His administration started the class warfare which turned off not just republicans..but business leaders as well. The latter group made it well-known that they didn't appreciate the POTUS's "outreach" when he castigated them as "vulture capitalists" while asking them to work w/him to get the economy moving. It has been discussed time and time again that Obama failed to forge relationships w/Congress and even members of his own administration..some even staff. The "detached, aloof, inner circle" claims have been around for a while now.

So you're sorta correct. But if the "no deal" attitude Gingrich refers to is a yard stick to measure bipartisanship, I would suggest that the "We have the votes, fyck 'em" attitude didn't forge lasting relationships either.

Obama is no Saint here. Let's stop trying to reinvent him into one.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 2:27 pm • linkreport

"His administration started the class warfare which turned off not just republicans."

thats true, if any criticism of SOME large businesses, financial institutions etc is class warfare, even when its based on truth - and of course if we accept that the attacks on poor people by the GOP since 1980 are not class warfare.

"but business leaders as well. The latter group made it well-known that they didn't appreciate the POTUS's "outreach" when he castigated them as "vulture capitalists"

he never said business leaders in general are vulture capitalists. and the notion that people with such wealth and power are so touchy about being called names is absurd.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 2:39 pm • linkreport

quote out of context much?

IIUC Rahm said we have the votes, at a time when it was urgent that the stimulus bill be passed quickly to give the economy momentum, and the GOP was dragging things out.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 2:43 pm • linkreport

if any criticism of SOME large businesses is class warfare, even when its based on truth - and of course if we accept that the attacks on poor people by the GOP since 1980 are not class warfare.

Big Business has always been criticized. However, the tenor of this administration and democratic operatives from the start was that business was BAD for americans. That Wall Street created the financial crisis. That warfare continued throughout the campaign against Romney..caricaturing him as that Wall Street type who takes away your jobs for mass profit. One of the "greedy" types responsible for where we are.

he never said business leaders in general are vulture capitalists.

You're correct. He didn't specify "people" but spoke generally about "business" and they were called vulture capitalists by Obama and his surrogates.

and the notion that people with such wealth and power are so touchy about being called names is absurd

Yet somehow calling people names and expecting them to then be your best friend is an example of reaching out and changing the tone in Washington?

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 3:50 pm • linkreport

IIUC Rahm said we have the votes, at a time when it was urgent that the stimulus bill be passed quickly to give the economy momentum, and the GOP was dragging things out.

Rahm's attitude during that time didn't not garner him many friends w/in the same halls he was supposed to be a genius..Congress. Although he didn't use the same terminology, Obama also hurled the "we won" line to republicans.

The issue at hand is whether Obama has been unfairly painted as "not" being bipartisan. Nothing you've posted proves that he has. That's unless you think people naturally respond to insults in the affirmative.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 3:55 pm • linkreport

Hogwash,
This seems timely in light of where the discussion has gone.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/01/business_hated_fdr_but_he_delivered_growth.html

by drumz on Nov 1, 2012 4:09 pm • linkreport

"However, the tenor of this administration and democratic operatives from the start was that business was BAD for americans."

That is absolutely false. If anything they leaned over backwards for business.

"That Wall Street created the financial crisis. "

Which is largely true.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 4:42 pm • linkreport

"Yet somehow calling people names and expecting them to then be your best friend is an example of reaching out and changing the tone in Washington?"

A. give me a quote (with link) where he called people 'names"
B. he never needed them to be best friends. And of course a number of businesses worked quite well with the admin. Finance didnt, largely because they didnt want to be regulated more than they had been. Despite all.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 4:44 pm • linkreport

"Rahm's attitude during that time didn't not garner him many friends w/in the same halls he was supposed to be a genius..Congress."

he managed to pass health care reform, something dems had wanted since truman. His genius was getting things done, not making friends.

" Although he didn't use the same terminology, Obama also hurled the "we won" line to republicans."

They did win. Elections DO have consequences. They DID reach out, but werent willing to A. not do a stimulus, or substantially delay it B, make fatal compromises on health insurance (need I remind you that obamacare was already a compromise from hillary care, and was basically GOP policies on health care from the 1990s?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 4:48 pm • linkreport

@Drumz, thanks but I don't get your point here.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 4:52 pm • linkreport

That is absolutely false. If anything they leaned over backwards for business.

I wouldn't say the "leaned over backwards" for business but do believe business hasn't necessarily suffered under his administration. But that's not the discussion. The discussion is whether Obama has been unfairly painted as NOT being bipartisan. Business doing well is not an example of that. I mentioned the "tone" coming from the campaign and "it" has not been good for building these relationships w/the business community. Whether their feelings are hurt or not..the tone the campaign struck w/it's "venture capitalist" schtick helped to create the acrimonious relationship.

That Wall Street created the financial crisis.

And people who purchased these homes they couldn't afford bear no responsibility right? Since that is the democratic talking point. Wall Street forced people out of their homes. Not their bad decision making.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 4:58 pm • linkreport

give me a quote (with link) where he called people 'names"

No need, we're already discussing the "vulture capitalist" and "greedy wall street bankers" lines of attack.

Finance didnt, largely because they didnt want to be regulated more than they had been.

Not a finance guy but I haven't seen much evidence that "fear of regulation" was at the root of their issues w/Obama. At least it's not something I hear coming from the commenatariat.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 5:02 pm • linkreport

he managed to pass health care reform, something dems had wanted since truman. His genius was getting things done, not making friends.

Once again *sigh*, we haven't been discussing whether Obama was able to get anything done. We've been discussing his olive branches. Saying that he passed healthcare says nothing about bipartisanship...unless you can explain how. So if his genius was to simply corral members of his own party, then that's not saying very much. Especially since that is not the CoS's job..but the house whip's. But ok, you think he was a genius.

They DID reach out, but werent willing to A. not do a stimulus, or substantially delay it B, make fatal compromises on health insurance (need I remind you that obamacare was already a compromise from hillary care, and was basically GOP policies on health care from the 1990s?

Do you even read what I say or just skim it and figure out a critique? When did I say they NEVER reached out? NEVER right? But it doesn't matter because you seem content on just repeating what I never said.

You (and other ardent Obama supporters) believe that the POTUS did everything possible to be bipartisan (since that's what they said). I (and other objective sources) believe that he did NOT fulfill his promise of bipartisanship...whether at his own hands or those of his surrogates.

Dems made fatal compromise w/in their own Party. See Ben Nelson, Blanch Lincoln and Mary Landreiu sweetheart deals.

They did win. Elections DO have consequences.

Sure they do. And how you choose to negotiate w/the opposing team matters. Some of the republican opposition is indeed "payback" for what dems did when they were in power.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 5:13 pm • linkreport

"No need, we're already discussing the "vulture capitalist" and "greedy wall street bankers" lines of attack."

not lines of attack. Actual quotes.

"Not a finance guy but I haven't seen much evidence that "fear of regulation" was at the root of their issues w/Obama. At least it's not something I hear coming from the commenatariat."

You must have missed their war on dodd-frank.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 5:24 pm • linkreport

"And people who purchased these homes they couldn't afford bear no responsibility right? Since that is the democratic talking point. Wall Street forced people out of their homes. Not their bad decision making."

the point is not who created the HOUSING crisis, but why it developed into a broader financial crisis - which was due to the structure of the finance industry, the abuse of certain financial instruments, etc.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 5:27 pm • linkreport

"Dems made fatal compromise w/in their own Party. See Ben Nelson, Blanch Lincoln and Mary Landreiu sweetheart deals."

those werent fatal, they did not compromise the core of universal coverage, etc. The GOP was putting nothing similar on offer.

And the GOP was obstructionist from the very beginning. on the stimulus what the dems PASSED was a balance of tax cuts and spending. The GOP was unwilling to achieve such a balance (and your quotes from Woodward support that).

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 5:30 pm • linkreport


'But Cantor said yes, he meant zero. He was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans, they’d be able to slap a “bipartisan” label on the bill. “We can get there,” he said. “If we don’t get there, we can try like hell to get there.”'

Their entire strategy was to deny any bipartisanship, from the very beginning.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 5:33 pm • linkreport

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

You must have missed their war on dodd-frank.

No but your logic suggests that they began to dislike working w/Obama because of Dodd-Frank although there is no corroborating evidence to back up your assertion that they waited well over a year to "stop" working w/him.

which was due to the structure of the finance industry, the abuse of certain finance industry

Absolutely. And how did they get to where they were able to abuse the system? Congressional in/action right? That is, Under dem control, I can't recall one single measure dems voted AGAINST that would've helped lessen the burden of the financial collapse. They were in power..but of course let's blame Republicans and Wall Street for that too.

on the stimulus what the dems PASSED was a balance of tax cuts and spending. The GOP was unwilling to achieve such a balance (and your quotes from Woodward support that

That's an odd way of looking at history. The repubs didn't support the stimulus in large part because dems didn't include enough entitlement reform. They were for entitlement reform and dems were not, especially the house. Dems were for lower taxes and republicans (just as adamant) weren't.

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 6:39 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 6:44 pm • linkreport

"Absolutely. And how did they get to where they were able to abuse the system? Congressional in/action right? That is, Under dem control, I can't recall one single measure dems voted AGAINST that would've helped lessen the burden of the financial collapse. They were in power..but of course let's blame Republicans and Wall Street for that too."

First we were discussing wall street, not the GOP. Second, of course Wall street was influential in passing financial dereg in the 1990s, through their very considerable influence on both parties. Third, yes the GOP which controlled congress at the time had considerable influence, and made financial dereg more extreme than Clinton wanted (though to his shame Clinton did not fight very hard) Fourth, to be fair, when dereg was passed, the folks who passed it did not know what financial institutions would do with it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 2, 2012 9:06 am • linkreport

"No but your logic suggests that they began to dislike working w/Obama because of Dodd-Frank although there is no corroborating evidence to back up your assertion that they waited well over a year to "stop" working w/him."

Again, is the "they" wall street, or the GOP? The GOP made a strategic decision to oppose Obama on everything from day one. Wall Street was in turmoil on day 1, and really didnt regroup politically till the discussion of financial reg reform started.

"That's an odd way of looking at history. The repubs didn't support the stimulus in large part because dems didn't include enough entitlement reform."

Negotiating something as complex as entitlement reform in an emergency stimulus bill sure sounds like a formula for delay and obstruction to me.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 2, 2012 9:09 am • linkreport

First we were discussing wall street, not the GOP. Second, of course Wall street was influential in passing financial dereg in the 1990s...to be fair, when dereg was passed, the folks who passed it did not know what financial institutions would do with it

While republican's push for deregulation surely contributed to the recent crisis, democrats also share in that blame. You can't go back to the 90's and blame it on the republicans for what they did under a democrat President (Clinton), then for what happened in the 2000's under a republican president and THEN once again blame them for what happened under yet another democratic president.

And again, "we" also share in that blame.

by HogWash on Nov 2, 2012 10:37 am • linkreport

Again, is the "they" wall street, or the GOP? The GOP made a strategic decision to oppose Obama on everything from day one. Wall Street was in turmoil on day 1, and really didnt regroup politically till the discussion of financial reg reform started.

From the start of this discussion about whether Obama has failed to achieve bipartisanship, I've given you several examples of where he, his staff, his party and as well as instances where republicans were clear in their obstruction. OTOH, you are pushing this notion that Obama "really" tried to be bipartisan but republicans denied him that option. When I've presented contrary evidence, you (and Oboe) simply dismissed the sources as biased and concluded that I'm clueless for listening to Woodward.

Negotiating something as complex as entitlement reform in an emergency stimulus bill sure sounds like a formula for delay and obstruction to me.

That's still odd because "entitlement reform" was part of the emergency bill you say was too complex to negotiate. Republicans have also long alleged that their proposals were not included during the initial negotiations w/the stimulus and they reacted (albeit petulantly) by standing in lockstep.

Again, more information on how bipartisanship failed.

by HogWash on Nov 2, 2012 11:26 am • linkreport

Obama is no Saint here. Let's stop trying to reinvent him into one.

No one is. So if that's what you're complaining about, then I guess you needn't.

My point is that Obama gave every sign that he was willing to cut deals and meet Republicans part way to get bipartisan legislation and that Republicans had no interest in that. There certainly are legitimate criticisms of Obama, and I'm sure than in the thousands of interactions he had with members of Congress there were times that he probably offended people or handled things poorly - that's the nature of being human (and not a Saint). But Republicans had stacked the deck so that no matter how Obama behaved - even if he were a Saint - the outcome would be the same, and that outcome was 100% opposition.

I (and other objective sources) believe that he did NOT fulfill his promise of bipartisanship...whether at his own hands or those of his surrogates.

Because Republicans set out to not allow him to fulfill that promise. How could he possibly do it, if they decided not to let him?

That Wall Street created the financial crisis.

They did.

That warfare continued throughout the campaign against Romney..caricaturing him as that Wall Street type who takes away your jobs for mass profit. One of the "greedy" types responsible for where we are.

To be fair, Romney's Republicans opponents made the same arguments.

And people who purchased these homes they couldn't afford bear no responsibility right?

Not for the financial crises, no. One person buying a house they can't afford does not make a crisis. It is the systematic lending of money to people who can't afford it that caused the crisis. And that was done by Wall Street.

Those people are responsible for their own loans, and in most cases they have born the penalties that involves. But the onus is mostly on the lender, which is why the risk is mostly there too.

The repubs didn't support the stimulus in large part because dems didn't include enough entitlement reform.

Entitlement reform was never part of the stimulus conversation.

OTOH, you are pushing this notion that Obama "really" tried to be bipartisan but republicans denied him that option. When I've presented contrary evidence,

I missed have missed that evidence. Not evidence of times when Obama insulted the GOP, but evidence that the GOP was somewhat inclined to cut a deal with Obama. If they had decided not to cut a deal, no matter what Obama did, then what Obama did doesn't matter, does it?

by David C on Nov 2, 2012 5:07 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us