HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

stupidicus

Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 975

Journal Archives

Who says there's no such thing as a legitimate rape

at least in the figurative sense?

and especially if they are already on their backs...

'I've said it before, I'll say it again,' Obama said. 'We can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/big-income-losses-for-those-near-retirement/ who have borne the brunt of this recession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/obama-fiscal-cliff-austerity_b_2338440.html

yep, I wrote this days ago now

but have yet to post it anywhere since I hadn't honed or edited it..

It's the elephant in the room as far as I am concerned, and a successful "trickle down" scheme. And if I were to add anything at this time, isn't it validated by our collective lack of remorse over the millions of dead and displaced Iraqis?

yep, something's rotten in America

and the last thing this country needs at this time is to have the rightwingnut kings of BS telling us exactly how rotten it is or why.

If I were to play social psychologist and try to identify some of the pathogens afflicting the host, I'd start with american exceptionalism that the gun/culture of violence flows from. It's kinda like the functional equivalent of the AIDS virus -- it doesn't and need not kill the host directly, but rather weakens it to the point were it's vulnerable to things that can. In the case at bar, we are indeed "exceptional" and exceptionally vulnerable to its virilence, resulting in the political impotence and will we are now seeking a remedy for in the wake of this evil.

America’s gun-related murder rate is the highest in the developed world, excluding Mexico, where the ongoing drug war pushes the murder stats way up. The question of what causes the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate is a complicated one involving many variables, but it certainly seems plausible, especially the day after a knife attack in China injured 22 children but killed none, that one of those variables would be access to firearms. And, in this regard, America is truly exceptional.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

One could I suppose, make a case as to how it makes some individuals more directly susceptible to succumbing to the infection.

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.
------------------------------------------
The phrase fell into obscurity for half a century, until it was popularized by American newspapers in the 1980s to describe America's cultural and political uniqueness. The phrase became an issue of contention between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans attacking Obama for allegedly not believing in it.
------------------------------------------
During the George W. Bush administration, the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context. Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being "above" or an "exception" to the law, specifically the Law of Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Frontier_spirit

I'd say given the history of our warmongering and imperialism, that was less an abstraction and more the shared pov as to what it means, and something embedded in most of us whether we understood it that way in the context of the description, or were even aware of the self-description or not.

"No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded."
-- Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)

whether it be becoming famous or infamous. And given our collective historical lawlessness on the world stage -- of the goose denying the gander type -- well, that's just another absent barrier and pathway to a societal norm Margaret warned about. It's our collective use of violence as a problem/conflict solving tool worldwide and a trickling down of it that feeds the mindset of our "well trained militia" types who cling to the 2nd amendment practically above all else, because without that foreign enemy the constitutional justification imo anyway, evaporates. And the reality is, as long as we are collectively reliant upon indiscriminate violence as a means of conflict resolution or to make a collective statement justified by american exceptionalism, we are gonna be victims of our own collective making. What for example, is the diff between the madness of the gun nut demaning the right to own a gun they could kill hundreds with if they did their homework with, and us clinging to our nukes? And what exactly is the diff from the survivors perspective between the Newton tragedy, and this? http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/lets-also-remember-the-176-children-killed-by-us-drones.html Much like gun nuts here, our gov runs and hides in the impermeable shell of inconcievability that short circuits any consideration of -- much less concrete solutions -- the fact that it's the availabilty and use of the method and means (those inanimate objects that have no role in this) and the lack of sufficient restrictions on both that perpetuate the problem. And of course, this is all due to another thing we're exceptionally good at -- exploiting the profits to be had from the thing we say we're dedicated to stamping out worldwide -- violence.

Does this sound familiar?

How America is Filling up itself and the World With Guns
The University of Michigan “Correlates of War” project, run by my late colleague David Singer, tried to crunch numbers on potential causes of the wars of the past two centuries. Getting a statistically valid correlation for a cause was almost impossible. But there was one promising lead, as it was explained to me. When countries made large arms purchases, they seemed more likely to go to war in the aftermath. It may be that if you have invested in state of the art weapons, you want to use them before they become antiquated or before your enemies get them too.http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/how-america-is-filling-up-itself-and-the-world-with-guns.html

perhaps maybe that can be compared and contrasted to the "likelihoods" of being a victim to or perpetrator of gun violence in this country once you become an owner...

Of course all tribes like to adopt and sell a similar pov to their members -- in a less "abstracted" way of course, at least in practice -- but how many of them have so many that wanna cling to their guns and bibles like Linus does his blanket, and with so much of their self-identity and world views attached to both? While it certainly can't be said that all those who've used this as a vehicle to "make a statement" in this country did so for the foregoing reasons, they were likely certainly aware of how common it is in terms of usage in this country.

It's certainly a statement our country has made many, many times -- Might makes right, and death sells better and is more easily bought than peace as a solution.

Shameless socialist strenuously strove stridently

before the election, to counter-productively criticize Obama with wholly irrational and baseless charges regarding the social safety net programs, sowing much fear and apprehension in the process.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+sanders+SS+and+medicare&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

As we know, that kinda conduct could ONLY have evil motives, like to maliciously attempt to depress voter turnout for BHO by way of injecting divisiveness in the ranks of his supporters -- because some would naturally be silly enough to buy into it -- thereby dampening their enthusiasm.

Thank Dog he wasn't successful with his effort.

Should DU do a petition to send to him to cease and desist with this conduct, full of the ridicule and scorn we feel for his having knowingly and willingly at least tried to jeapordize BHO's reelection chances?

(sarcasm off)

If the dems lose the election, who will you blame?

If it comes from a lack of that intangible "enthusiasm", I'll blame all the BHO supporters who've spent the last the last many months insulting all those with concerns about what BHO intends to do with SS, over paperless voting machines, etc, which they've made to feel like traitors to the cause. What kinda "moran" would allow the discusssion of uncertainties between what is largely BHO supporters, to unduly influence them, and moreso than the "thy shall speak no evil" so to speak attitude this represents, the exaggerating to that it represents notwithstanding?

After all, if some potential or otherwise BHO voters can have their enthusiasm and desire to vote so severely undermined by bearing witness to the seeking of discussion and an honest exploration of the facts and perceptions over the aforementioned things, how will they react to the direct and indirect insults coming from those so irrationally fearful of any boat-rocking whatsoever? And this is particualrly true of those leaving the "Our way or the highway!" ways of rightwingnuttery, or those fence-sitters to which such things matter. They've merely discovered that the much vaunted/ballyhooed liberal "tolerance" is a sham.

I've long been convinced that the fear of rightwingnuttery in those disappointed in BHO, indies, and CONverts, far eclipses in importance and will influence their upcoming voting choice far more than anything such discussions could possibly provide in terms of changing that choice. Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing divisive about the expression of concerns, and even if there is, it pales in comparison to the divisiveness of the "sit down and shut up" nature all the whining about it represents. I'd ask why anyone would wanna vote with those who are nothing but dismissive of their concerns, and whose only real argument against them is to charge them with and for things the very act of charging them with it makes them guilty of, with the not so subtle distinction that they choose to insult with claims of divisiveness or not caring about an unshown and unproven dampening of enthusiasm that could result. In other words, those with concerns about this and that having nothing to do with convincing someone to vote Mutt, or to not vote for BHO, are being lectured by those similarly situated with nothing but "concerns", lecturing others in a variety of ways about how they and their concerns are unacceptable. Their guilt of such is nothing but a fabrication by those who have no interest in anything but, and have the mentality of a cheerleader. Where in the rules of the political game is it written that only positive reinforcement is allowed or required, and what does it say about those who think that others are so weak-minded and impressionable that they'd be influenced by it to the extent they sofar, have baselessly claimed. It's almost cult-like thinking, ain't it? I think they are intelligent people who won't be unduly influenced by the insults, dismissiveness, etc, than they will be by the exaggerated negative results/influence the cheerleading claim the expression of their concerns will have, which makes them the smarter of the two groups as well.

And gee, which is more harmful to our collective cause -- people who most likely intend to vote BHO regardless expressing honest concerns about this and that in an allegedly liberal and "tolerant" environment, or those intolerant of such telling them "politely" to sit down and shut up?

I think even a grade schooler could answer that question correctly more often than not.

yep, been writing about it forever it seems

the problem doesn't reside in the "rightwing brain" in terms of structure, but rather the flawed and inconsistent structure/construct of their immorality/amorality that results in such high levels of disgust for their ideological opposition. They live in denial of all the facts that undermine their povs on those matters and more, but most importantly, in denial of who and what they are all that defines them to be.

Deflections, projections, scapegoating, etc, are all denial tools that alleviate their burdens of conscience, and keeps their disgust flowing outward as opposed to inward where it belongs. Lying to themselves is necessary, and the mortar that keeps the wall of denial standing.

The dynamics of it all isn't that much different if at all, from what the German people collectively underwent decades ago.

One can only wonder for example, had it been some politically neutral figure rather than the despised Al Gore, that took the helm of the global warming awareness movement, what that debate would look like now, or the public opinion polls would show on the matter. Similarly, one could wonder what the modern "con" mind would look like, if they weren't on the wrong side of almost every political issue of significance past and present that has led to forward progress and less human misery. Much like the greatest lie the devil is said to have successfully propagated -- that he doesn't exist -- the modern con has to lie to the public and to themselves, to pretend that their sad and sordid record doesn't exist. Their record of failures and the immorality component of much of it, is transmuted by their mental alchemy into successes. This is why despite all the evidence that record represents, they still lay claim to the moral high ground and a monopoly on mensa membership. It's also why they have tolerance for chick-fil-a and muslim-bashing video makers, but no tolerance for those who object to them.

All of which is why I've long been disgusted with, and loathe and despise them. The difference is of course, mine can be justified because it doesn't have bigotry as the proximate cause -- unless intolerance for that kinda intolerance, or hating haters is "identical to on a moral scale, the kinda bigotry they embrace and gladly live with.

that's why I despise rightwingers of the Bushbot type generally

they spent years being wrong about almost everything --as well as historically -- much of which had a strong moral component to it, e.g. lost blood and treasure in Iraq, yet they still sit on their moral high horses polishing their equally unearned (but self-granted) mensa awards.

Their immorality/amorality are showcased in their lack of remorse over the blood needlessly shed, their attitudes towards the poor and disadvantaged they try to enshrine, etc, and their lack of foresight rivalling that of the common earthworm, as well as their inability to draw the correct conclusions from the same body of fats we all share, points directly to either their complete lack of critical reasoning skills, or their service for the evil their immorality/amorality spawns.

This is why I've struggled for the last ten years in detemining what is their most defining and shameless characteristic -- their willingness to claim the moral highground as ijmmoral/amoral pucks they are, or their willingness to claim the sharpest tools in the box award as those who've been historically and currently wrong about almost every issue of significance, ranging from the efficacy and benefits of SS, to that of the most important issue of this or any other time, AGW.

This is also why I've long thought civility is way overrated. There is no getting over, around, or under their mountain of denials, there's just going through it/running them over. While their complete abandonment of the 9th Commandment has pretty much eliminated whatever attitude/behavioral modification value shame use to have in this country, at least running them over provides us an outlet for our frustrations, and helps keep the emperor naked, whether they find that condition embarassing or not.

What you wrote about is in my estimation, the best evidence for the myth of a "liberal" media. It's not just that he still has a soapbox, but also that those that got most of it right, don't.

no doubt dude

that's why we on the left (not just dems) are like herding cats.

I had Catholic and conservative parents, and learned my own parentling skills from them by doing in most cases, the polar opposite.

The "authoritarian" aspect is what slays me almost the most about them. While it does benefit them greatly by supplying so much cohesion as they are buffeted by the winds of reality, it also keeps them far removed from it, kinda the way their endless lying keeps them together, while being an affront to their god, and being wrong about almost everything of significance keeps them together, but far removed from being "right". Shame and stupidity both like company just like what their sad (and disgsuting) plight should lead them to - misery.

I find the Maslovian heirarchy of needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs interesting to, in terms of arguing and establishing which camp -- the faith-based/authoritarian or reality-based/independent -- shows the most potential for full maturity as defined by self-actualization of the individual, as well as a consistently applied moral construct without which much of the rest is artificial garbage maintained by the authoritarianism they are subjugated by. Given the rampant "otherization" their camp engages in, the quality of their morality is easily called into question by the excess of prejudice alone. They don't solve problems, they create and perpetuate them, including the content of this discussion. And as the faith-based camp, acceptance of facts is outta the question.

Their reliance on and fealty to authority, whether it be some religious figure "lying for the lord" (like Mutt is free to do as a Mormon http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord) or pols and pundits doing it for essentially the same "the ends justify the means" reason, is a problem because of who and what they rely upon as an authority imo, not that they bow to authority. Morality is the authority we all bow to, it's just that theirs is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and therefore worthless as such and not even worthy of such a designation for that matter.

I'm a lefty an a lifelong atheist, but I still understand and appreciate the wisdom and beneficial applications of the golden rule, and a great deal else some religions can teach us about the betterment of our societies and mankind generally. I am also a bit of a moral relativist, because our needs change with time and circumstances. I think that is where our "independence" comes in and distinguishes us from them and their slavery to authority-seeking men. We are slaves to the best ideas and solutions that relieve human suffering in all its many and varied forms -- the highest moral calling -- as opposed to them clinging to inflexible/immutable dogma that more often than not, stands in the way of that.

The disgust they muster and maintain for us is cultivated, grown, and supplied, only for the purpose of maintaining authority and the power that comes with it. I find it unsurprising that cons are more susceptible to it http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/disgust-and-politics/ because of the need to hide from that which they should be directing at themselves, as already argued. This can be seen in some individual issues as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_1412846.html I don't see how what we're seeing today can be ingrained/hardwired into them biologically, because collectively and individually they are far removed in too many ways from their predecessors on too many issues. And besides, who cares if it is? Being immoral/amoral, apathetic and greedy assholes is bad and/or stupid no matter the cause, no?

The bottom line is, if they have nothing to hide about themselves, why do they have to lie so much about their opposition in defense of themselves and their political/public policy pursuits? Much like with the Medicare thing, it's always a "your side is worse!", full of lies defense, no?

Rage is a symptom, not a cause

As I've been arguing it since I wandered into the internets over a decade ago, and started interacting with rightwingnuts I wouldn't give the time of day "out here", the cause of the rage is morality-based, and largely hinges on/is tethered to, a thing known as disgust. If as Saint Raygun once famously declared, morality and politics are inseparable, then I'd say it is their immorality/amorality that is the fundamental cause of their evil.

That is the primary chord in the rightwingnut minion their masterminds sought to pluck from the beginning -- disgust, which naturally results in the rage you write of.

This is why they were over time, given a license to lie freely without fear of political or financial reprisal, because the lies have been piling up and retaining some vestige of truth to them no matter how thoroughly debunked they are -- to maintain, or indeed, constantly increase the disgust their minions have and hold for their opposition, to be found in everything from their racism, homophobia, islamophobia, to the anti-war people hating the troops and loving the terrorists, or hating success and loving the lazy.

so after a while they learn to seek out rage triggers as a way of escaping their anxieties and blocking their awareness of their own inadequacies.


There's a lot of truth in this comment imo, but in my "model" so to speak, I'd argue that disgust is used as the building block of denial and the long and very high wall they've produced from it. After being on the wrong side of history over just about everything of significance that has moved this country and humanity forward, and more recently the many and varied failures during the Bush years (lost treasure replaced by much blood, etc), of course they have a great deal to feel inadequate about, and more importantly, shame.

The disgust and denial they produce from it is an individual and collective ego survival mechanism to hide from their historical failures as well as those they currently pursue, like for example, another round of "trickle down". It is also what provides the moral justifications (in their minds) for the costs they've extracted as an ideological movement in terms of human lives lost and human misery. How else do you explain for example, over 50% of them still believing wmds were found in Iraq? Their manufactured disgust for their ideological opposition keeps them from drowning in the Sea of Shame where they belong. It's why they are so horribly dishonest and in denial about so much, and why they are so dependent on such things as scapegoating, deflection, projections -- an array of tools designed for and intended to, provide that figurative bowl of water Pontius Pilate used, to wash their hands and dark souls so as to maintain a self and ideological-wide perception that they have the moral high ground.

The reality is, they are in the untenable position of claiming the moral high ground and being the smartest tools in the proverbial box, when they've stupidly been historically wrong about almost everything of significance, while only paying lip service to the good book upon which their morality is based.

Their rage and the endless search of a fix, is a product of the morality-based disgust that's been cultivated and grown in them for so long, and a putting of it into action -- an outward manifestation of it. It is nothing more imo, than an effort to deny and hide from, the disgust they should be feeling for themselves.

This is why it is such an intractable and ever-escalating problem, because obviously the only means of breaking this cycle is for them individually (as some do) is to risk their self-identity and world view, and to take responsibility for having supported it in the past. Some manage to do this, as we've seen recently with posts about conversions from individuals or relatives, but even then a lot of denial remains present because rarely is there ever any commentary about those individuals role as a prior participant feeling remorse for that role. More often than not, this is avoided (as we can see for example, from a Bartlett, Frum, etc) by them becoming a worse critic of their former brethren in evil than many of those who have long opposed them are, like a reformed alcoholic or cig smoker.

"Fear of self is the greatest of all terrors, the deepest of all dread, the commonest of all mistakes. From it grows failure. Because of it, life is a mockery. Out of it comes despair."
Psychologist David Seabury (1885-1960)

They are as evil and ugly as they are, and rely upon rage and the offensive offense as defense it produces, because they have no other means of hiding from the reality that is their ugly and evil selves.

Chris Mooney has been looking at the rightwing brain in search of a common denominator to explain its inner workings. I've never thought one needed to look beyond the dynamics behind building a cult, which they closely resemble if not identical to. In the case of the movement conservatives, only the goals and elements have been changed to hurt the innocent. The modern cons in this country are not unlike the German people in the wake of WW11, minus the stark object lesson littering their landscape in the form of death camps that couldn't be denied.

Imo that will be the only silver lining to the upcoming ravaging of the planet AGW has in store, and that will require socialistic solutions that can be laid directly at the con feet -- as well as the guilt for the need to.

actually it's always more fun reading descriptions of rhetoric/behavior

that must be totally imaginary, because otherwise they'd be quoted/cited, and then on the basis of the known merits or lack thereof, stomped in the DU dirt.

That must be why it's only talked about, but never actually accomplished. The idea that there's no foundation for fears/concerns that medicare and SS will remain wholly untouched in any negative way whatsoever is preposturous.

Fears or concerns over a "cutting" aren't alleviated by things like "not a slashing!" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=is%20obama%20going%20to%20cut%20ss&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F07%2F07%2Fsocial-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html&ei=tjgoUJ_xCcTrygGG8oGgCA&usg=AFQjCNET_1DfeE-E9tDau3v7JefOzXkRPw when the position the fear/concern flows from is NO cutting at all. As a matter of fact, resorting to an exaggeration like "slashing" indicates knowledge that they are on the right runway, and merely being accused of overshooting it, since ANY cuts at all is the complaint, leaving a "slashing" unrequired. It's a pretty simple concept, yet you seem to be struggling with it. Why is that?

(Pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about whether “cutting” benefits was different from “slashing” them, Carney demurred.)
http://www.alternet.org/story/151561/is_obama_on_the_brink_of_cutting_social_security_the_dangerous_game_over_the_debt_ceiling


And why for example would "the dems"

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

be presented with a challenge unless the "changes" aren't as innocuous as the Obamabots want to believe? And furthermore, if it was part of some alleged bargaining effort and a bluff ("Xth"diminsional chess I say!!!!") http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/obama-wants-to-cut-medicare-and-social-security-benefits/ as some have alleged, it sure is a good thing it wasn't called, no, then he'd have looked like an idiot.

The fears and concerns are well grounded on the basis of the fact that it contributes nothing to the deficit alone, but is being included in budget negotiations, much less all the other reasons, starting with as far as I know, the lack of a clear and concise statement as pres that we'd be seeing the same or better bennies going forward. http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html Can you provide the readers with such? I haven't seen it yet, so end the "debate" right here and now, no? Surely such a statement was warranted after the unneccesary doubts were raised in the dem leadership and many reasonable and rationale dems, and after the Tapper inquiry, no? Or do you think it best that the exceptionally stupid so-called dems, just charge all those people with "not being real" dems" and be done with it? Gotta love that "liberal" tolerance, no?

DOn't use this one
The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/Obama-consumes----and-criticizes----news-coverage-820194/1

and please, feel free to point out my "propagandizing" here, which must necessaily involve a showing of half truths, falsehoods, distortions, etc, and not some childish and impotent BS about how the conclusion that SS and medicare bennies are under threat are completely unfounded. Hollow declarations like that only come from equally hollow heads.

have at it, or give me an "actual" tacit concession you're all wet.

what's next for BHO, a Gingrinch? -- "those who quote me accurately are lying!!!" http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html

Good question -- I've been asking it for years

and I won't bother to wade through all the responses here to see if any of the usual suspects have provided an explanation or evidence that the fear/expectation of such isn't perfectly rationale and reasonable.

I'm guessing it'll take this kinda form http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/grand-bargain-theyre-coming-our-socia and here's a goody http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/pete-petersen-hosts-bill-clinton-paul.html

The reality is, the third way suporters have nothing but their hopes and delusions that the deck isn't being stacked http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html as far as I can tell. As far as I am concerned, this was one of the primary reasons the PEE Partiers came into existence -- to pull the already well off center ideological dividing line in DC farther to the right, in an effort to provide cover/reasons for the dems to do what only they could -- exactly what you're talking about. http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html and more

That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. Would they support him?

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled. ... Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »