en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/342440 Comments by A Political Season http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2012/01/22/correcting-lawrence-odonnells-presumption-on-foods-stamps/#IDComment272315536 Lets be clear. Newt has explicitly connected blacks to his use of the food stamp attack line. When he spoke in NH at a senior center, he gave the line about Obama being the food stamp president and then followed it by saying he would go to the NAACP and tell them blacks should demand paychecks instead of food stamps. So while ODonnel may have made her point talking about food stamps generically, Newt specifically conflated blacks and food stamps together in his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:48:28 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2012/01/22/correcting-lawrence-odonnells-presumption-on-foods-stamps/#IDComment272315536 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260928009 Actually, I would expect the NAACP to call out BS from the Nation. That they fail to do so reflects poorly on them. So to with the Tea Party/GOP et al. When Santorum and Newt can make outrageous statements and get a pass or even worse be applauded and defended for them, that reflects poorly on the GOP/Tea Party and the principles they claim to support. I take your point on the ethanol subsidies assuming the author of the article is correct in ascribing the impetus for letting them die to the Tea Party. I will note that farm subsidies are still very much a part of the agricultural industry landscape and you don't see Tea Party types opposing them by cosigning the same sorts of dog whistle rhetoric that gets pointed at blacks. Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:26:36 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260928009 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260064979 It shouldn't. Blacks were historically republican until the GOP through us under the bus. I think what should confuse you is why black folks demand so little accountability or real results from a party to which we have given unswerving political loyalty. Democratic, progressive policies have not worked. Conservative principles are a better basis for policy that benefits us. The GOP's political practice leaves much to be desired, but so does the Democrats. Black folks have got to start playing their political cards better and stop being a democratic voting bloc by default. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:50:18 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260064979 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260058049 Wasting resources implies you actually expended some in the first place. That hasn't happened. And as I said, GOP dog whistle behavior is common, I document it often enough here and I'm not going looking for it, it finds me. You have a point that black folks largely tune out GOP policy positions after they hear one of those whistles, but you and I both know that the most voters are low information (its why neg attacks work). If GOP/Cons use insulting memes repeatedly on the black voting population, memes they already know are an issue, how are blacks to blame. As a movement, we don't go around insulting voting constituencies we actually think are important to our aspirations for government. The fact that we do it with blacks so routinely says volumes. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:38:55 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260058049 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260049005 Good on them, though I notice they don't go around insulting those beneficiaries as society draining laggards. Now, if they start going after dog whistle behavior emanating from their side of the aisle as consistently as they did those subsidies, I'll say nothing but nice things about them forever. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:24:59 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260049005 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260017127 There's an irrational factor there? Really? Your argument would bear more weight if what we are describing were an isolated incident, but its not in any way. It's not just Santorum's "two times". You can go back through posts on this very blog and see the number of times I've called out insulting language and aspersions directed at black folks by GOP pols up and down the hierarchy of the party. This dog whistling behavior is COMMON. And it IS an indictment not only of the party, but the conservative movement itself that it is not confronted when it appears. Conservative principles are better. The GOP's practice of them in implementation and messaging when it comes to engaging black folks is abysmal. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:35:26 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment260017127 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment256521454 Black people are disproportionately on welfare? Really? Only if you want to talk about welfare as WIC or public assistance payments, or put another way, only if you want to talk about forms of welfare where blacks are large beneficiaries. But if we're going to talk about welfare, then lets talk about welfare. Farm subsidies, corp. bailouts, Social Security. Those are all welfare, all breaking the bank, all costing FAR MORE than public assistance transfer payments that blacks receive and the beneficiaries of those welfare programs are overwhelmingly white, in raw numbers, proportionally or however you want to count it. Whenever this conversation about welfare is to be had, its curious that we only focus on welfare programs where blacks have large representation among the beneficiaries, never on the ones where they don't. But welfare is welfare. Thats why the GOP is in a trick bag as you suggest on race and welfare, because they only want to focus on welfare where the beneficiaries are black. If conservatives and tea partiers were really consistent on this issue of dependency on government welfare, they would be equally as interested in pulling the beam out of their own eye as they are the splinter out of ours. The difference isn't lost on blacks and undermines conservatives who want to raise this as an issue because the inconsistency is so utterly glaring. Fri, 6 Jan 2012 05:32:51 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-have-become-incapable-of.html#IDComment256521454 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-surges-in-iowa-with.html#IDComment256158522 It is disturbing to me that these memes circulate widely and completely unchallenged within the conservative movement. As a conservative and a card carrying republican, its damn frustrating. I call it like I see it and make the case for accountability. We still have a very long way to go though. Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:41:22 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-surges-in-iowa-with.html#IDComment256158522 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-surges-in-iowa-with.html#IDComment256157370 Being a conservative doesn't mean i abdicate to foolishness. The "progressives" have a pretty real Bantustan they seem to have black folk penned up in. Calling me a "NegroeCon" strikes me an as indicator of the plantation you might be living on. I'm an African American and a citizen and there ain't no conflict between those two things. Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:39:28 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-surges-in-iowa-with.html#IDComment256157370 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/11/occcupy-wall-street-whatcha-gonna-do.html#IDComment223994345 No, I disagree. Their targets are financial sector companies, to the extent they articulate that. Its not Occupy Hollywood. I don't think those folks are scared either, but the issue for OWS is whether they are going to get serious about the hard work of change. The Tea Party folks buy into a principles narrative thats good, but just like the GOP, their political practice leaves much to be desired often. OWS has gotta grow up and decide if they want to get real and effective, or just act out and settle for that as their contribution to changing the world. Are they gonna grow up and be activist citizen adults or remain civic adolescents. They have to decide. Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:36:13 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/11/occcupy-wall-street-whatcha-gonna-do.html#IDComment223994345 http://hillbuzz.org/irans-imaginary-nuke-why-it-doesnt-matter-48927#IDComment223990448 Attacking Iran is not a simplistic exercise, and it bothers me that everyone generally talks about it like it is. And most everyone describes it in this simplistic "Israel is gung ho and will take them down, while Obama is gutless and won't" manner that drives me berserk. At the level of those decisions, the world is not that simple. Bush declined open conventional attack on Iran and Obama has refrained for same reasons. its not simple. As for Israel, everybody should just get real for a second: Israel CANNOT successfully DESTROY Iranian nuclear capabilities without US assistance. POINT BLANK. Further more, the global consequences of an attack affect more countries than Israel alone, so its not just about them. As Stratfor notes: "The military option has its own risks. First, its success depends on the quality of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities and on the degree of hardening of those targets. Second, it requires successful air attacks. Third, it requires battle damage assessments that tell the attacker whether the strike succeeded. Fourth, it requires follow-on raids to destroy facilities that remain functional. And fifth, attacks must do more than simply set back Iran’s program a few months or even years: If the risk of a nuclear Iran is great enough to justify the risks of war, the outcome must be decisive. Each point in this process is a potential failure point. Given the multiplicity of these points — which includes others not mentioned — failure may not be an option, but it is certainly possible. But even if the attacks succeed, the question of what would happen the day after the attacks remains. Iran has its own counters. It has a superbly effective terrorist organization, Hezbollah, at its disposal. It has sufficient influence in Iraq to destabilize that country and force the United States to keep forces in Iraq badly needed elsewhere. And it has the ability to use mines and missiles to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf shipping lanes for some period — driving global oil prices through the roof while the global economy is struggling to stabilize itself. Iran’s position on its nuclear program is rooted in the awareness that while it might not have assured options in the event of a military strike, it has counters that create complex and unacceptable risks." Complex and unacceptable risks people. Thats why nobody has jumped off a conventional conflict yet. Iran's nuclear options have been contained and delayed thus far with assassinations, the Stuxnet attack (clearly a joint US/Israel operation) and diplomatic isolation. People scoffed at Obama offering to talk to Iran, but the practical utility of making the offer was to strengthen our hand and weaken theirs when they foolishly rebuffed it. They can't rightly complain if they get sanctioned or hit militarily when they were given a clear opportunity for engagement. Complex and unacceptable risks people, hear this: Stratfor again: "First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel". it ain't just about Israel. " there is a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States." You know who has a bigger problem with Iran than Israel? The Saudis, who live next door and don't play well with the Persians and oh by the way supply a whole damn lot of our oil. Don't kid yourselves. An Israeli attack on Iran CANNOT succeed without US help, would require essentially the destruction or crippling of a substantial portion of Iran's conventional military capability and would involve blowback consequences for us and the rest of the world economically that Israel can't manage. We should all stop talking about it like its a cowboy exercise. Its deadly darn serious and non trivial. Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:26:29 +0000 http://hillbuzz.org/irans-imaginary-nuke-why-it-doesnt-matter-48927#IDComment223990448 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/10/rush-hearts-murderous-child-stealing.html#IDComment212631526 Okay, clearly the Ugandan government has a poor record as well. I'd submit as a government entity, they are marginally more accountable to some level of norms they can be held to than the LRA. I've seen suggestions that natural resources in the region play a role in our involvement as well. It may be a combination of that and the work of NGO's who have been spotlighting the LRA thats gotten us off the dime. All that being said, this action isn't much different then than a variety of things we do around the world. If we can save some lives, I'm still for it. Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:53:35 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/10/rush-hearts-murderous-child-stealing.html#IDComment212631526 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/10/rush-hearts-murderous-child-stealing.html#IDComment209716018 Perhaps the distinction to be made between bad guys is whose bad guys are they? I think the other point here isn't so much that this is a declaration of support for the Ugandan government. They asked for the help, but the LRA's predations are going on across a swath of territory on the border of Congo, Sudan and Uganda. They are a destabilizing force. And as far as I can tell, nobody is accusing the Ugandan government of child abduction, child rape and atrocities of that sort. Even a bad bunch like the Ugandan government are not doing that. Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:00:16 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/10/rush-hearts-murderous-child-stealing.html#IDComment209716018 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/07/she-said-he-said-west-vswasserman.html#IDComment177489742 Brother CF, your point gets no argument from me relative to the misinformation contained in Wasserman's statements. But I don't regard such political back and forth as terribly relevant other than its effectiveness in winning the policy debate amongst the body politic. In that sense, West's exasperated response to Wasserman displays his political greenness to a degree. Were I Wasserman, I would continue to bait him and let him make some other unforced error of language as he did here. Open hostility plays to the base, but not to the electorate more broadly and while we conservatives complain about double standards on language, we hand our political foes the stereotypical imagery to oppose us. It was a hot headed response, not a thoughtful one and the debate it created was about whether or not West is mysognist or violent and angry, not the merits of Cut, Cap and Balance. Thats a fail in my book. Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:01:24 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/07/she-said-he-said-west-vswasserman.html#IDComment177489742 http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2011/04/15/democrat-new-tone-pa-politician-asks-if-she-can-kill-a-colleague-blow-his-brains-out/#IDComment176257062 Reading it in context, I don't think its that deep. The game of which party can make the most hyperbolic claim about the rhetoric of the other reaches new levels of silliness every day. Its a new kind of PC run amuck. Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:53:15 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2011/04/15/democrat-new-tone-pa-politician-asks-if-she-can-kill-a-colleague-blow-his-brains-out/#IDComment176257062 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/bachmann-and-gingrich-finally-cracking.html#IDComment167285392 Very true on both counts. But as Chikide indicated very well, the GOP cannot out of timidity cede the field of debate as it relates to race to the democrats. The root issue is the underlying defensiveness of the GOP either because there is room for their record to be questioned or due to the simply laziness and lack of courage to make a principled rejoinder or better yet, blaze a trail on these issues. Newt is right. They better get into the community and make their case. Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:50:40 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/bachmann-and-gingrich-finally-cracking.html#IDComment167285392 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/bachmann-and-gingrich-finally-cracking.html#IDComment167284385 Brother Villager, given the many brands of foolishness that we do give our attention to, I actually don't think as a political constituency we are beyond giving Bachmann the benefit of the doubt. The challenge is whether or not they can articulate conservative viewpoints in a more sophisticated way which is crafted to address blacks as a political constituency. A frank, non insulting approach can work, they both have the beginnings of the political argument. The question is whether they will take the time to craft the message. Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:47:20 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/bachmann-and-gingrich-finally-cracking.html#IDComment167284385 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/palin-emails-spare-me-outrage-on-right.html#IDComment163293864 Thanks for stopping by here at APS. We love vigorous debate around here. Come back anytime. I'm not sure I buy Palin as the quaint, corny patriot kingmaker. I've never been one to deride her as stupid, because she's not. She's canny. And while she is probably sincere enough in her views, I think she skillfully panders to her base of support at the same time. I don't think she has particularly good policy chops. I actually think Bachman is the better candidate in that regard, though she can't garner support outside of her tea party base either. I think Palin went through a meat grinder and somewhat like Vanessa Williams, the first black Ms. America, she moved on and made the best of it and in the end, is getting the final yuks. But aside from being a political gadfly and opinion maker and exploiter, I'm not sure what her contribution is. How long can you be the former governor of Alaska and former VP candidate and get paid to be that before its old news? At the most cynical level, an Obama victory is good for her, it helps her to maintain relevance. If the GOP takes the White House in 2012, maybe she gets a job in a GOP administration, I don't know. I don't endorse the Palin hatred, but I'm not interested in the Palin koolaid either. ;) Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:10:37 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2011/06/palin-emails-spare-me-outrage-on-right.html#IDComment163293864 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2008/02/tavis-stop-drinking-your-own-koolaid.html#IDComment163083475 I don't think there was a right or wrong to his accepting/declining the invitation. He had to make a decision about what was the best use of his time in a historic campaign. Other than Tavis' insistence, there was not a compelling reason for him to be there vs. on the campaign trail in the middle of an epic primary battle. Most people agreed with that decision and regarded Tavis' reaction as indicative of his ego much more so than Obama's need to be there. Tavis attempted to portray his not coming as an indictment of his concern or commitment to the black community, pulling his "black card" so to speak. Most people saw that as over the top and disagreed strongly with Tavis about it. Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:16:25 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2008/02/tavis-stop-drinking-your-own-koolaid.html#IDComment163083475 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2008/02/tavis-stop-drinking-your-own-koolaid.html#IDComment163014597 I disagree. Tavis' pique at Obama declining to come (though he offered Michelle in his stead) struck most observers, particularly among his primarily black audience, as a foolishly unreasonable thing to insist on. Tavis was not about to deliver some audience to Obama that he was not already reaching. Most observers felt his issue with it was more about him and his own ego and sense of importance, than it was about Obama not having his priorities straight. Obama was focused on winning the campaign and I think most folks thought that was the right focus. Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:29:31 +0000 http://politicalseason.blogspot.com/2008/02/tavis-stop-drinking-your-own-koolaid.html#IDComment163014597