White House calls environmentalists "ridiculous," "silly," and not "serious" -equates them to GOPers

[nashville_brook]

AmericaBlog quotes from the NYTs and offers some words of advice...

From the NYTs
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-debate-arises-on-job-creation-vs-environmental-regulation.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

http://www.americablog.com/2011/09/white-house-calls-environmentalists.html

You can keep hoping and praying that the President will take you seriously, or you can get in his face like gay activists did when we found that our groups' strategy of playing nice was getting us nowhere. This White House does not respect the Democratic base or core Democratic issues. They only respect people who challenge them -- people who "take hostages," to quote the President.

(snip)

More food for thought, for those who might suggest we just let this slide. If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November.

It's not disloyal speaking up. It's disloyal watching an electoral train wreck coming your way, and doing nothing about it.

[cali]

1. What's so difficult about being honest and not playing dumb as grits word games?

[Are_grits_groceries]

56. Dumb as grits?

I resemble that!

:hi:

[kristopher]

124. Well said. The OP is nothing but an overt misrepresentation.

DU seems to have lost its way...

[rhett o rick]

128. Then why dont you straighten us out? Tell us why Obama turned on the environmentalists?

Tell us why he starts spewing right wing talking points. Environment protections will save lives and create jobs. He is on the corporatists side on this. Whose side are you on??

[ChairmanAgnostic]

134. What you said.

And more.

Tar sands?
Ozone and particulates?
What will be next, drilling under the great lakes, razing forests to help build a leaky pipeline from Canada to Texas? Removing FIFRA regs from industry?

No, wait. Let's stop Clean Water enforcement for two years. That will save BILLIONS!

[kristopher]

135. Get a grip on reality

My post is specific to the OP where the comments cited do not, in any way support the conclusions of the person that posted them.

I'm not thrilled with the way Obama has handled anything to date. His refusal to fight for policies that are clearly the right thing to do (ie public option) has left me with a strong negative feeling towards his style of leadership. However, that does not justify what amounts to the avalanche of blatantly false statements (such as in the OP) that have flooded DU in the past year or so.

[rhett o rick]

144. No way. You were not specific. You did not counter anything the OP said. If you have a counter

argument, please state such.

[defendandprotect]

149. Evidently, the mission of denial never includes actual debate ....

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

155. People can deny all sorts of shit, despite mountains of unassailable evidence.

you know that.

[SidDithers]

254. Awesome!!...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Divine Discontent]

229. +1

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Show me where The White House "called environmentalists" any of those things.

They didn't do that, and that's why anyone who actually reads the source material can see that the OP is a blatant misrepresentation.

[rhett o rick]

162. Maybe the wording was to subtle for you. But the article was very clear that the Repubs were happy

with Obama's decision. "Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards."
Maybe the OP was too enthusiastic but you are avoiding the main issue. Was the decision favorible to the Republicans? I say yes. And you say, "hey look the OP misrepresented". How do you feel about the decision???? Forget the OP title. Or are you just trying to distract from the decision??

[Warren DeMontague]

168. The wording was "to" subtle for me? Yeah, I must be a real moron not "too" understand it.

No, it's a total misrepresentation of the statement, attributing things to it that aren't there. It was one guy talking about one 3 word term, not talking about "environmentalists", much less telling them to fuck themselves or whatever the latest piece of breathless hyperbole is.

I'm not happy with the EPA ozone standard decision, either, but that's not what this "too enthusiastic" thread is about.

[jeff47]

218. The quote's in the OP. (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Yeah, you're right, there's a quote in the OP. Which says nothing remotely resembling that.

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”


which is NOT the same thing as "The White House Calling Environmentalists 'ridiculous', 'silly' and 'not serious'",

nor is it The White House "equating environmentalists to GOP'ers".




The wording of the OP is hugely overblown hyperbole, and it's a total misrepresentation of what was said. There are plenty of legitimate real gripes to be made about the White House, or recent environmental decisions, without having to make shit up whole cloth.

[jeff47]

256. Do I seriously have to diagram that sentence for you?

You can parse all you'd like, but there's an obvious attack in there.

Either he's a moron, or he was attacking environmentalists and others "on the left" as fringe radicals out to regulate the hell out of everything. And I don't believe he's a moron.

Who, exactly, do you think he's attacking on the left? I want a list. Because I'm not aware of anyone on the left who wants regulations for the sake of regulations. On the other hand, the WH is under attack from environmentalists for their ozone decision.

[Warren DeMontague]

276. There's an attack in there. But the OP is a total misrepresentation of what was said.

If what was said was so fucking god-awful offensive, why the need to make shit up that isn't there?

[Ken Burch]

232. There IS no such thing as a "job-killing regulation"

And there's no reason for the administration to give aid and comfort to the Right by implying that there could be.

[kristopher]

250. Actually there is, but nothing in the current realm of policy discussions would qualify.

The way the right uses it is as a mindless chant. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be true; for example, Bush 's regulatory regime killed many millions of jobs - and hundreds of thousands of people.

[The Doctor.]

184. When and how did he "turn on the environmentalits"?

What "Right wing talking points" does he spew.

Fucking post them or STFU.

[rhett o rick]

227. You dont have to get nasty. The information is in the OP and the linked article.

"They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards."

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

Maybe this quote from the President will help: "In a statement, Obama praised EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s effort to improve the nation’s air quality but said he had asked her to withdraw the draft standards because they were scheduled to be reconsidered two years from now anyway.

“I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” Obama said. “Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.”

"In January 2010, Jackson announced that she would set the standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In July, she informed the Senate that the Bush ozone standards — which will now remain in place — “were not legally defensible given the scientific evidence in the record” of the current rulemaking.

Jackson and White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley called leaders of the environmental community Friday morning to alert them to Obama’s decision. Daley spoke to his high school and college classmate Charles D. Connor, who heads the American Lung Association and whose group had suspended a lawsuit over the Bush ozone rules while Jackson reviewed the standards.

“For two years, the administration dragged its feet by delaying its decision, unnecessarily putting lives at risk. Its final decision not to enact a more protective ozone health standard is jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, which is inexcusable,” Connor said in a statement, adding that his association will revive its lawsuit against the administration." http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-pulls-back-proposed-smog-standards-in-victory-for-business/2011/09/02/gIQAisTiwJ_print.html

[The Doctor.]

248. Too many times, I've found that one gets nothing and nowhere by being 'nice'.

These days, if there is information to be had, the confrontational approach works the best.

Thank you for your response.

[Ken Burch]

233. It was a right-wing talking point to agree that there is such a thing

as "job-killing regulations". There isn't, and there never has been.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[im1013]

147. Absolutely!

He does that a lot. Pretty similar to what I have to say to him.

:grr:

[defendandprotect]

153. +1000% -- on BOTH points -- !!

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

156. do you have a link to that quote?

you know, the one where he told everyone to "go fuck ourselves"?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

164. Tell us how YOU feel about Obama's decision on this. I dare you. nm

[Warren DeMontague]

170. I just did. I'll do it again. I'm not happy about it.

but to express my displeasure about it, I don't need to attribute bullshit quotes where they weren't made.

[DirkGently]

177. Wrong. Sunstein's comments were nothing but an overt misrepresentation.

[Ken Burch]

231. No it isn't.

There isn't any possible progressive interpretation of what Sunnstein said there. The only possible conclusion to draw is that they're telling us we don't matter-while STILL demanding our votes.

There isn't a middle ground on the environment.

[Ken Burch]

230. It's honestly wrong to for a Democratic president EVER to equate

progressive critics with right-wing enemies. And you can't really bash the left and still be significantly different than the right.

Face it, the center doesn't exist anymore.

[Bluebear]

286. +

[OHdem10]

2. Good points.

[Scurrilous]

3. Nice try.

:thumbsup:

[Mr Deltoid]

4. "‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy" "‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron”

So, Obama takes no side? WTF does he believe in then? Jaysus.

[Unvanguard]

40. Um, maybe he believes that not all regulations are created equal.

And that some accomplish good ends, while others are harmful to the economy. This is not a particularly offensive or objectionable claim. In fact, it's quite obviously true.

[DirkGently]

52. We're not suffering from over-regulation. We're ARE suffering the results of under-regulation.

To try to say "everything's equal" in this era is the ridiculous, stupid, dishonest false equivalency game the link in the OP is pointing out.

[Unvanguard]

67. That is a much better and fairer critique than the one actually made by the OP's link.

But it still reads more into Cass Sunstein's statement than is actually there. He's not making a comparison of the relative harms, in the present day, of overregulation versus underregulation. He's just saying that some regulations are good and some regulations are bad. Which, again, is obviously true.

[DirkGently]

69. Thats not what he said. He said there's an equally crazy liberal view, which there isn't.

"Job-killing regulations" is dishonest rightwing rhetoric. There is no liberal equivalent on this point. There is no reasonable way to pretend there is. Therefore, the comment appears to be an incredibly awkward, determined effort to somehow be ... "fair and balanced" by forcing in a jab at the left, when there's nothing there.

[Unvanguard]

72. I'm not sure I understand your claim.

Do you think there are no economically harmful regulations? Do you really think liberals never fail to think carefully about costs and benefits when proposing new regulations or defending old ones? Accepting that, sometimes, liberals have ideological prejudices or knee-jerk reactions doesn't mean that all right answers lie in the center. It's just an observation of a pretty clear political reality about how people of all political persuasions sometimes think.

[DirkGently]

76. He pretended there is liberal equivalent of the "job-killing regulations" rhetoric. There isn't.

[Claudia Jones]

132. excellent

Very good point. The defenses of these statements by the White House official all break down with the point you are making. Well done.

[Muskypundit]

99. +1

[hay rick]

123. But we're equally crazy and dishonest.

You've got it exactly right. My first reaction when I read the article was that I've never seen anyone on the left claiming that 'job-killing regulation' is an oxymoron.

The administration wants to dismiss environmentalists' arguments by shooting the imaginary crazy and dishonest messenger. Sunstein then glibly concludes: “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

It gets worse and worse.

[nashville_brook]

141. this is a big victory for the GOP which has scheduled votes targeting more regulation

[defendandprotect]

175. -- big victory for the oil industry --- !! Thanks, Obama -- !!! ROFL

As Al Gore has confirmed ...

"Congress is under the control of the oil and coal industries" --

Guess he forgot to mention the White House/Obama, as well!!!



Yikes!!!

[creeksneakers2]

169. hay rick wrote:

"I've never seen anyone on the left claiming that 'job-killing regulation' is an oxymoron."

Maybe not with those exact words but if you looked here on DU when Obama postponed Ozone regulations that would have cost up to $90 billion that there was no explanation other than Obama being a far right puppet. The fact that a $90 billion cost to business could kill jobs was hardly included in the discussion.

[hay rick]

200. I objected to Sunstein's straw man.

He caricatures imaginary unnamed wackos on the left as claiming that no regulations ever cost jobs. He then equates these people with the well-organized forces on the right that oppose virtually all regulation "on principle."

There are two common generic arguments from the left supporting increased environmental regulation.

The first argument claims that jobs lost are offset by jobs gained elsewhere. An example would be tighter regulation of emissions at coal-fired generating plants. The electric industry might choose to shut down a plant or two, but other plants will be retrofitted creating offsetting jobs in environmental businesses that manufacture and install precipitators, scrubbers, etc. And the closed plants may also be replaced by new natural gas-fired plants. The new jobs replace and may even outnumber the "lost" jobs.

A second generic argument is that compensation for lost jobs comes in the form of some social good that equals or exceeds the cost of compliance. Continuing with the coal smokestack emissions example, the argument would be that improvements in health and/or property values more than offset the costs of the program. The classic example is the reduction of SO2 (acid rain) resulting from the Clean Air Act of 1990.

In the acid rain case, the ultimate costs appear to have been about a quarter of the original industry estimates. I'm guessing that "$90 billion cost" and "job losses" are more industry-sponsored scare tactics than "facts".

[creeksneakers2]

271. You talk like you are reasoning

but do you take the time to look at the evidence, or jump to conclusions?

You write,"I'm guessing that "$90 billion cost" and "job losses" are more industry-sponsored scare tactics than "facts"."

But:

Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from 19 billion to 90 billion U.S. dollars, according to the EPA.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/03/c_131094930.htm

Sunstein didn't call anybody a wacko.

I've understood that job losses could be offset with new jobs in compliance. It would depend on the economics. If there is potential profit left after paying for the fixes, jobs will be created. If there isn't enough profit, then entire projects would be abandoned. It would take more than a "guess" to figure out which. That's probably why Sunstein see some people as unreasonable.

[hay rick]

280. Good guess.

In your previous post you wrote: "The fact that a $90 billion cost to business could kill jobs was hardly included in the discussion."

In your latest post you write: "Estimated costs of implementing this proposal range from 19 billion to 90 billion U.S. dollars, according to the EPA."

Looks to me like the $90 billion number just got very squishy. I'm obviously not the only one guessing here.

As for Sunstein seeing some people as unreasonable, he's seeing what he's paid to see. Eye-opening article on this flack here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

[creeksneakers2]

282. In my previous post I also wrote

" up to $90 billion. I wasn't guessing.


Then you fall back to going after Sustein for an unrelated matter. The right wing is after him for the same thing. Why change the subject?

[quakerboy]

217. NT

Deleted because the post above mine said it far better than I even tried to.

[tgal]

274. Thank you Dirk

you get it.

[defendandprotect]

172. Global Warming is exactly proof of that -- guess Obama didn't notice ... ???? ROFL

If it wasn't so sad -- !!

We need to be folding corporations/capitalism -- not regulations!!


:hi:

[Bluesbreaker]

115. Try actually reading the NYT article

It's pretty clear there's a very strong case that (1) these arguments about "job-killing" regulations are continuously raised and haven't panned out (just like better mileage for autos will kill car companies); (2)the regulations actually create jobs in the case of regulating pollution, because the companies that make the pollution control equipment expand and hire workers; (3) the savings to the economy from reduced hospitalizations, illness, deaths and other health-related costs far outweigh whatever financial costs some companies may have to bear. Also, these company costs are usually passed on to the customers or ratepayers (in the case of utilities). Speaking for myself, I'm willing to pay a few cents more a month on my electric bill if it cleans our air and reduces pollution that harms my family.

[Unvanguard]

I'm not really sure what your point is.

Are you arguing that the Obama Administration should have followed the advice of the EPA scientists and implemented the more stringent pollution regulations? I agree. Do you think it follows that all regulations are good? I don't think it does.

[defendandprotect]

188. "all regulations" good or not good would be ....

a nonsense point waste of time --

Let's remember we're talking about the planet -- and survival of humanity!

[Unvanguard]

117. Duplicate. n/t

[nashville_brook]

179. +100000

[defendandprotect]

157. "Harmful to the economy" -- by any chance have you or Obama noticed Global Warming?

:rofl:

[Unvanguard]

I'm strongly in favor of aggressive action to combat climate change.

I fail to see what your post has to do with mine. How does the fact that some regulations are good and important (like those that combat climate change) conflict with the fact that there exist other regulations that have net social costs?

[defendandprotect]

241. Climate change is something which occurs naturally ... Global Warming is NOT ....

In fact, "climate change" was the suggested name change given to W Bush by

the notorious RW propagandist Frank Luntz!

Meanwhile, the discussion you're trying to introduce is inane -- and an effort

to waste everyone's time.

You may fail to see that Ozone/smog is an essential ingredient of Global Warming

and general pollution by industry -- and especially of the oil industry -- but

that's your choice.

If you truly have any understanding of Global Warming and its threat to humanity

and the planet, that would be your major concern.

[SidDithers]

255. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 when Luntz was 16...

"Climate change" is a term that was used by climate scientists years before Luntz came on the scene.

If you truly have any understanding of climate change, and its threat to humanity and the planet, you'd know that.

Sid

[Unvanguard]

259. I support the more stringent rules on ozone, too.

:shrug:

[Unvanguard]

215. Duplicate. n/t

[certainot]

257. thanks, i was trying to say that

the diarist's headline interpretation might as well have been written at redstate

[MH1]

43. maybe that it's not so simplistic?

that it's not black-and-white?

[Marr]

96. That statement has the appearance of

being sort of middle of the road, but when you actually think about it, it's quite right-wing. It's an assertion that environmental standards should be guided by big business' bottom line.

[defendandprotect]

159. What we need to be doing is saving the planet -- folding corporate/fascism .... !!

[Mugweed]

252. I remember when cost to business was not a factor in environmental regulation

I guess profit is more important than human health and welfare these days. I've been an environmental engineer for 20 years now and the last decade has really gotten me depressed. We have oil companies making billions in profits, paying $400 million pension plans to former CEOs, yet claiming they can't afford the pollution controls required on refineries. Cry me a river. We're doomed. We will kill this planet in the name of profit margins.

[mmonk]

44. The only people that use "job-killing regulation" in any context have traditionally

been rightwingers.

[Unvanguard]

49. Anti-marijuana laws are job-killing regulations.

I am not a right-winger.

[former9thward]

73. Laws are not regulations.

Laws are made by elected bodies. Regulations are made by government departments and agencies. So which regulations are "bad" as you put it or "job-killing"? BTW anti-marijuana laws keep millions employed in the criminal justice system, drug education, etc. Make marijuana legal and far more people would lose their jobs than would be created if that is your only standard.

[Unvanguard]

81. I don't think that distinction really works in this context.

Whether a limit on free market transactions is a product of legislation or administrative rule-making has very little to do with its economic effect.

As for the question of whether marijuana regulations create or destroy jobs, your point is well-taken. Actually, you might reasonably say that no regulations truly "destroy" jobs in the long run, in that labor markets adjust to them eventually, and deregulation, by upsetting the status quo in various ways, might cause temporary unemployment just as imposing new regulations might. Maybe the best way to interpret the critique is to say that "bad" regulations interfere excessively with mutually-beneficial transactions (including ones that involve employment). Repealing marijuana laws, on the other hand, wouldn't do this, because, e.g., paying people to arrest and imprison drug users not only fails to be a socially-useful transaction, but in fact is actively socially harmful.

[joshguitar]

98. utterly untrue

please research colorado economic data over the last year: they have the most progressive mj laws in the union and it has been a huge boon.

[Fly by night]

253. "Make marijuana legal and far more people would lose their jobs ..."

BULLSHIT.

If cannabis ever becomes legal, there will be two benefits to job-seekers:

1) The production and distribution of cannabis will be taken out of the hands of cartels (ours and Mexico's) and become legitimate opportunities for aboveground workers in this country. You should educate yourself about the Colorado medical cannabis experience. In that state, thousands of jobs have been created AND the commercial real estate market has also benefitted. In that state, both Democratic and Republican legislators support their program, in part because of the positive impact on their economy that a legal mmj program has produced.

2) For the 800,000+ people who are arrested each year in this country for cannabis-related offenses, their own job security and future job prospects would no longer be negatively impacted by their desire for a "formerly illegal" smile.

By your logic, we should open more concentration camps (i.e., prisons) in this country and criminalize more victimless personal choices so that more meat-head prison guards, clueless (and unnecessary) substance abuse treatment counselors and overpriced attorneys can be employed. Right.

In addition to the net job creation aspects of cannabis legalization, taxing this substance will be a boon to cash-strapped governments. Again in Colorado, where fees to be mmj producers and distributors were implemented earlier this year, Colorado state government collected over $8 million (in four days!) in fees, more than enough to run their state mmj program AND to contribute the excess revenues to the general fund. Here in Tennessee, we have estimated that within five years of the implementation of our Safe Access to Medical Cannabis program, state revenues would exceed $90 million on a $450 million program (with small farmers receiving $180 million of that money), and that is if only 15% of eligible patients enroll in the program. After funding the administration of our state mmj program, we have proposed to place all excess tax revenues into indigen health care and substance abuse treatment (for people who really need it), two chronically underfunded programs.

Maybe you can come up with a better example. But arguing that continuing to criminalize cannabis use is a net job creator or is beneficial to the economy or to the tax base of local, state and federal governments is absurd on its face.

BTW, my own cannabis conviction (for growing and providing cannabis free of charge to terminally ill neighbors) dropped me from an annual six figure income as a public health epidemiologist to permanent unemployment. I have paid no income taxes for five of the past seven years. Extrapolate that to my fellow cannabis convicts and see if that is a net gain for anyone but violent drug cartels, street gangs and their drug-worrier counterparts.

BTW (part 2), every cost-benefit analysis of cannabis legalization has concluded that there would be a net gain to the US economy and to almost all stakeholders. A recent analysis of the Portugal experience bears this out. These analyses are easy to obtain on the 'net and I would encourage you to obtain them.

[former9thward]

260. Bullshit back at you.

First I was not arguing to keep weed illegal for job creation. You obviously can't read. I don't care that it would cost jobs. I think it should be legalized. I think immediately ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would cost jobs too but I still think they should be ended today.

Your examples about criminal records keeping people from employment, including your own, does add up because someone has or gets that job, just not you. So there would be no addition of jobs if people didn't have a weed conviction.

[Fly by night]

266. Maybe You should reread your own post before criticizing my response.

You argued that keeping cannabis illegal maintains "millions" of jobs in the criminal justice world. That's nonsense on its face. If you believe that cities would stop hiring policemen and states would stop hiring prison guards if cannabis became legal, you are mistaken. It's just that those hires would have a more challenging time dealing with real criminals.

Since a criminal record prevents people from being hired for jobs they could perform, anti-cannabis laws contribute significantly to the unemployment picture. To say otherwise is silliness.

Maybe you don't know what you meant to say. I responded to what you did say.

Ending cannabis prohibition would be a net gain for the economy on a number of fronts. Anyone who has studied that issue (or who has read the studies of others) would know that. You might do that sometime.

[former9thward]

272. I understood what I said.

You are just math challenged. If YOU don't get a job because of a record that doesn't mean the job goes unfilled. Someone else will get it. Therefore the overall unemployment picture does not change just because some people don't get jobs because of records. If THEY were to get a job then someone else doesn't get that job. Sorry you don't understand simple math.

If weed were legal the number of police, guards, court personnel, drug education/rehab people would go down. Also police and other law enforcement agencies use drug money and other drug property seizures to fund their departments and buy the latest and greatest toys. All that would end.

[Fly by night]

277. You make assertions for which there is no basis in fact.

For example: "If weed were legal the number of police, guards, court personnel, drug education/rehab people would go down." Do you have any factual basis whatsoever for making this statement? If so, please share it with the rest of us.

You did say one thing that I do agree with: "Also police and other law enforcement agencies use drug money and other drug property seizures to fund their departments and buy the latest and greatest toys. All that would end." All that SHOULD end.

I am very familiar with these issues, not only because of my own medical cannabis-related experience with civil asset forfeiture but also because of my three year experience as a Congressional advisor on substance abuse in the Bush I and Clinton administrations and my work with seven states, seven American Indian tribes and three federal agencies designing and implementing programs to reduce serious substance abuse, programs which have been highlighted by the US Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control. Please share with us your own personal and/or professional experience, in addition to the citations requested above, that serve as the basis for your statements.

There have been a significant number of cost-benefit analyses of the impact of drug policy reform and, specifically, cannabis law reform. The Beckley Foundation report does a good job of reviewing some of those analyses. Here is the link:

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2011/04/20/legalizing-marijuana-an-exit-strategy-from-the-war-on-drugs/

These analyses pretty uniformly conclude that society would benefit economically and otherwise by these reforms. Again, feel free to provide your own contrary citations.

BTW, with two graduate degrees, 30 hours of graduate-level statistics and research methods coursework and three decades as a public health epidemiologist, I doubt that I am math-challenged. So if you don't have anything but personal insults to share, you might want to peddle your drug-worrier nonsense somewhere else.

Most of us here know better. And we're willing to back it up.

[former9thward]

278. Degrees don't mean anything if you don't have common sense.

You still don't seem to realize that if people didn't have weed convictions jobs would not magically appear. If YOU don't get a job for ANY reason the job does not go unfilled. It is taken by someone else so the unemployment rate does not change at all. You stay unemployed but someone else goes from unemployed to employed. If you got the job you would go from unemployed to employed and someone else would stay unemployed. It is really not that hard of a concept to understand.

Nice that you speak for "most of us here". I am not that arrogant. I work in the criminal defense field and I see on a daily basis how many people make their living off of drugs being illegal. If weed and other drugs were legalized most of those people would lose their jobs. If they didn't the heads of the government agencies that employ them should lose theirs because people would have nothing or very little to do. Sorry if you don't like reality based thinking.

[Fly by night]

279. Well, if relevant degrees, extensive direct experience and the consensus of most researchers ...

... who've studied the issue don't mean anything to you, I doubt if you'd recognize common sense if it bit you in the ass.

I provided you with a relevant citation which summarizes the cost-benefit analyses that have concluded that marijuana legalization would be a net economic gain (besides a victory for science, common sense and compassion) -- you responded with your personal experience. I don't discount your personal experience, though it does appear to be pretty limited (as looking at the world through a courthouse prism can certainly be.) I just don't think it measures up to the weight of the evidence, much less to my own, more relevant training, experience and published research on this issue.

BTW, most substance abuse treatment centers (of which I have created several) operate with long waiting lists of patients needing treatment, people who have to wait because so many treatment slots are filled with court-ordered marijuana users, the vast majority of whom do not meet the DSM criteria for substance dependence. If marijuana became legal, those waiting lists could shrink and people who need care could receive it in a more timely manner, while maintaining full employment for the treatment center staff. Likewise, there are many abusable substances that impact criminal behavior (alcohol being the main one) that would continue to keep cops busy. Likewise with substance abuse prevention staff in schools and elsewhere.

I'm sorry but you remain as wrong on this issue as you were when you first posted. You and I have never had any interaction here at DU and frankly I've never seen your nickname until this interaction. Curious, since you have over 2,000 posts in less than ten months here. Not sure where you've been hanging out, but it's nowhere I visit here.

So keep ignoring or dissing relevant degrees, experience and the consensus of the academic community on this issue. Keep repeating yourself, based on nothing but your singular experience, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (including the link I've already provided you.) That's fine with me. I've been around here for seven years now and so you're not the first tunnel-visioner I've encountered. Fortunately there aren't too many of your type here (or they don't last long).

I do admit that criminal defense attorneys and their auxiliary staff might have to get by with less expensive cars and threads if the cash cow that is marijuana prohibition is ended. So I can see where you have a personal (i.e., financial) stake in keeping the status quo in place. As for me, there is still more than enough serious substance abuse inflicting this country and planet to keep me busy as a public health professional. If, that is, I can ever overcome the consequences of providing free cannabis to sick and dying neighbors and freely (proudly) admitting that fact to the platoon of drug-worriers who raided my farm because I refused to sell any of that cannabis to a local drug dealer (working for our county's drug kingpin, a local judge.) Most people here know that story. You might know it too, if you had joined us more than ten months ago.

I've said all I need to say to you on this issue. If you have anything besides personal attacks and your personal experience to share (like links to any credible research that supports your position), I'm happy to read that if you'll extend me the same courtesy. Otherwise, it's no problem to ignore you. Your choice.

[former9thward]

281. If you are curious where I post you can do a search.

Oh that's right you can't -- you are not a donor. If you did you would find 99.9% of my posts are in General Discussion and General Discussion/Presidency. Don't know where you post but I have never seen your name. You are unable to read. I clearly stated in my posts I favor marijuana legalization. I don't care what happens to the jobs. Why do you insist on trying to smear me ("you have a personal (i.e., financial) stake in keeping the status quo in place." when anyone can read what I have written. You trying to change my posts and that won't work and just makes you look silly. I have no problem being ignored by anonymous posters on the internet. By some it is a badge of honor.

[Fly by night]

285. You asked for it. You got it.

Since we've never interacted here at DU before this unpleasant exchange, it will be easy to avoid another. However, since you say you've never seen me here at DU before, I would suggest you spend some time on the "Greatest" page. Here are a few of my OPs voted there by fellow DUers (three in the past month), including a half dozen voted to the top of the "Greatest" page:

Obama and/or Holder could change the nation's medical marijuana policy on Monday morning ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1831094

President Obama: Free cannabis ... or get off the pot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1232695

BIG NEWS!! National Cancer Institute acknowledges cannabis kills cancer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x730217

You won't find a stronger supporter of medical cannabis here at DU than me. Having said that, ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1100420

Witnessing our government sell my land for the "crime" of growing pot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8981174

My night at the Playboy Mansion, in support of medical marijuana

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3624105

The Inconvenient Truths About Medical Marijuana -- Five Easy References

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5043299

My seven-year dance with federal "drug worriers" is over, but my medical cannabis activism remains

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7145892

More needless deaths in the war on drugs: Govt-suppressed evidence that cannabis kills cancer cells

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5831628

Fly by Night's early Christmas : I'm (once again) free at last

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2405870

The Tao of planting asparagus (to deal with disappointment)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1118717

Pardon me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x406969

We hippies are STILL right. A tribute to the "back to the landers" who still sustain

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2101172

Talking the Walk: Bush Claims Quitting Drinking Began His Road To Our White House

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8497298

I Showed Up -- Reflections on the "Nash-ional" Conference

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=355167&mesg_id=355167
---

I suppose I could go on (and on), but you get the point. Oh yes, I forgot. You don't bother with links provided by other DUers. Oh well, it was fun doing a quick DU search for these threads anyway. (It was not difficult.)

Two last points:

1) If you had been around here very long or had paid attention, you'd know that I am not anonymous here or elsewhere. My name is Bernie Ellis, MA, MPH. Feel free to Google me anytime, here or elsewhere.

2) Abe Lincoln once said: "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt." That is good advice. You might consider taking it.

Now, where were we? Oh yes: Ignore.

[DirkGently]

59. Correct. It's rightwing rhetoric. There IS NO lefty equivalent.

[defendandprotect]

163. Agree -- AND, we can live without jobs -- we can't live without the planet -- !!!

[Marr]

94. He believes in window dressing, PR regulation that doesn't bother big business.

You know, something to add to The List. Doesn't have to accomplish anything-- just has to look nice when typed up.

[creeksneakers2]

160. Something between the extremes

That's all that is being said. Only the extreme attitude was called silly. Nothing was said about environmentalists.

There should be consideration of both costs and benefits to determine which outweighs the other. That's all the article and quotes are about.

The new Ozone regulations Obama postponed were estimated to cost up to $90 billion. That wouldn't make sense in this economy, unless there was a very great benefit.

[reACTIONary]

226. According to the spokes criter, these terms do not...

... belong in a serious discussion of a serious issue. So, apparently, he believes in taking serious issues seriously. Thinking about them and excising judgement, as opposed to spewing bumper-sticker slogans.

I think he's right.

[EFerrari]

5. What an idiot. She sounds exactly like the Fox bobbleheads. n/t

[Octafish]

6. Sunstein is the guy who wants to "cognitively infiltrate' conspiracy theorists.

Obama Confidant's Spine-Chilling Proposal

[Rex]

9. Sick little bastard.

Tells me he has way too much free time on his hands! Obama needs to drop that loser ASAP.

[Octafish]

12. Dropped onto SCOTUS.

The Horrible Prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein

Thank you for seeing what's what, Rex.

[nashville_brook]

27. wow, Cass Sustein guest-blogged for paleo-conservative Instapundit

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77804/

just an index of his vile-ness.

[Octafish]

107. Thankyouverymuch, nashville_brook. Great resource, thar.

Wonder what conspiracy theory they could all be afraid of?

[Rex]

34. I read that before, but did not know who he was.

Now that I know, I wish I could erase that particular knowledge (because it is frightening and he is dangerous). He leads one to believe that some conspiracy theories MUST be true for him to assert such idiotic notions. Why is he so paranoid himself? I think it is a conspiracy to make sure do disenfranchise certain ones that might be true (like JFK).

[Octafish]

101. A man's got to wear what a man's got to wear.

A Short History of “Conspiracy Theory”

About three years after the death of President John F. Kennedy, it became a matter of official CIA policy to denigrate anyone who disagreed with the Warren Commission conclusion of Oswald as the lone gunman. So, the agency ordered its "media assets" to label anyone who disagreed with the Big Lie as a "conspiracy nut." Ever hear Corporate McPravda say anything nice about Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone or anyone who disagrees with the Big Lone Nut Lie?

It's what the PTB fear most about the Proles: Knowledge and the ability to act upon it.

As some great DUers once said: "What you don't know, really can't hurt Them."

[nashville_brook]

10. oh yeah...the thing about govt infiltrating activist groups to increase faith in govt.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[Octafish]

18. Amazing.

Conspiracy Theories

Cass R. Sunstein*
Adrian Vermeule**

EXCERPT...

3. Cognitive infiltration

Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and
addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government might undertake
(legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories, arguments
and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn. One promising
tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style
infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in
future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in
weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that
constitute these networks and groups.

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups,
including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of
crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior,
their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest
that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or
reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.

In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no
effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that
Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in
dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not
usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In
another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false
identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but
potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials
participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and
conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from
the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the
tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be
suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of
cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful
instruments.

There is a similar tradeoff along another dimension: whether the infiltration
should occur in the real world, through physical penetration of conspiracist groups by
undercover agents, or instead should occur strictly in cyberspace. The latter is safer, but
potentially less productive. The former will sometimes be indispensable, where the
groups that purvey conspiracy theories (and perhaps themselves formulate conspiracies)
formulate their views through real-space informational networks rather than virtual
networks. Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked
to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves
become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining;
perhaps agents will be unmasked and harmed by the infiltrated group. But the risks are
generally greater for real-world infiltration, where the agent is exposed to more serious
harms.

All these risk-reward tradeoffs deserve careful consideration. Particular tactics
may or may not be cost-justified under particular circumstances. Our main suggestion is
just that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for
government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate
conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they
are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced,
large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have
credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging
beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them. Likewise, polarization tends
to decrease when divergent views are voiced within the group.69 Introducing a measure
of cognitive diversity can break up the epistemological networks and clusters that supply
conspiracy theories.

CONTINUED... http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[nashville_brook]

24. so condescending...and why the fear of "ridiculous conspiracy theories" anyway?

seems that if they're so ridiculous/outrageous, they'd have a natural shelf-life of <5 minutes, anyway. do beliefs, thoughts and words so endanger the functioning of the Republic that they require a cognitive game of Spy V Spy?

[Rex]

32. Yeah, it makes it seem that he is worried about conspiracy in general

paranoid freak. That would lead one to believe he is worried one or two might be correct, we just need to watch and see which ones he is most worried about imo.

[nashville_brook]

36. you took the words right out of my head.

i was thinking the same thing...tried to write it out, and deleted it b/c i couldn't make it sound right. but yeah...that's exactly what i get from his white paper: "there's something important to hide and we need a diversion."

lame, in a MacGyver way.

[Rex]

60. Minds like his always project their intentions

without the subterfuge of a professional con artist like Ari. This guy is an intellectual so gets straight to the point, unintentionally. Professional bullshit artists don't let you see their cards up front.

"We must destroy conspiracy theories, for the health of our country!" Sounds like some crazy bullshit we hear from trolls and Freepks.

[DirkGently]

146. More like flat out, bugsnot crazy. And we've got him on the payroll? Neato.

[rasputinkhlyst]

105. Will someone PRIMARY this DINO?

I suspect he really would have no chance of winning with the democratic base and that dumb repugs would cross over and vote against Obama as well.

[tblue]

33. Why is this guy in the White House?

Obama never ceases to deflate me.

[Octafish]

111. The guy the pukes had writin' histeree also is a doozy -- Philip Zelikow.

He was ED of the 9-11 Commission, among other things.

[defendandprotect]

192. +1000% --- one more infiltrator -- Zelikow -- !! Thank you --

[DirkGently]

50. That's incredibly creepy. Is there a rightwing nutwad this WH HASN'T brought to its breast?

[Fuddnik]

104. I don't think they've tried to re-legitimize Dick Morris yet.

But, they're probably working on it.

[2banon]

57. O.M.G. , O.M.G. , O.M.G. , O.M.G. , O.M.G. , O.M.G. , O.M.G. , n/t

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[scentopine]

174. Reported the same below, before I noticed your post. Kudos for bringing these facts to light! -nt

[defendandprotect]

191. Look more like our White House has been "infiltrated" by fascists .....

[Vanje]

7. Urecs. Who would have guessed?

" If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November."

[Jamastiene]

47. The right wing plan to continue to do just that

is so transparent to some of us. I don't know why the others don't see it yet. I'm glad you brought up the important point there again in your post.

[BeFree]

8. Nothing wrong with getting in their face

The worst that can happen is is divides us art a time when we need to be most unified to crush the Tbaggers and the voting machines.

[Curmudgeoness]

11. Haven't you been paying attention? We are divided.

This is no going to divide us further. I keep trying to have faith that the WH knows what it is doing, but the divisions that you speak of seem to start there.

[BeFree]

16. Oh?

"Divisions start there" ?

You have no clue about Carter, Clinton, Gore and now Obama being sliced and diced by fellow democrats? No clue at all?

[Curmudgeoness]

30. What I am saying is that when you run on a platform

that clearly is what the Dems want, and then you govern from some new platform that no one knew you had, you are open to debate about what you are doing. You divide the party when you turn your back on the ideals that got you elected. And making snide remarks about you base do not get you brownie points.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

14. Unrec. Policies are not people...

I can see this will become another "Liberals are fucking retards" lie.

Sid

[sufrommich]

17. Yep. nt

[Vanje]

20. It is getting thin

Sid. Fucking thin.

Apparently GW Bush was a great guy. Real fun to party with. It was only his policies that were evil.
Nixon was a great Dad.
I know someone who met Khaddafi in real life. She says he was "really nice".
General Pinochet was a doting uncle, and a good husband and provider.
Noriega was an affectionate pen pal.


Real nice people.

Policies. Ya gotta watch em.

[mopinko]

21. +1. word games.

[sabrina 1]

23. Environmentalists wanting to regulate corrupt, planet destroying

corporations are silly, as bad as rightwingers on the other side?

You agree with that? Now I understand all those unrecs with no explanation.

Sunstein is a rightwing infiltrator and has no place in a Democratic administration.

It's just getting worse by the day, as if this WH WANTS to lose the election for Democrats in Congress.

Do you care about that at all?

[bbgrunt]

28. that sure seems to be the real plan.

[nashville_brook]

29. +1

[Enthusiast]

116. It appears that the White House

is trying to demoralize the left in time for the 2012 election. They will not take a stand on environmental regulation or the social safety net.

Just imagine, the party that represents labor is PUSHING new free trade deals. They know full well how extremely unpopular these agreements are.

[joshcryer]

189. Who said anything about 'bad'?

[Shining Jack]

246. +1

[DirkGently]

54. Yes. Let's be fair here. The WH said environmentalists' "policies" are silly and unserious.

SO much better. SUCH an important distinction. Wonderful point about Rahm, too. Calling someone stupid is SO different from calling them a "stupid person." Heavens, how unfair that whole thing was.

For instance, someone might criticize a comment here as being "intellectually challenged," while only a silly nitwit would take that as a suggestion the poster himself was "intellectually challenged." The first is hardly an insult at all. It would be a "lie" to even suggest such a thing.

Right?


;)

[Lorien]

234. To the WH "serious"= anything to win the approval of the corporate elite

at the expense of the Nation, the planet, and the bottom 98%. It's a delusional, short term, childish view of the world where money and power mean everything and true worth isn't valued in the least.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

138. Yep. That "Rahm said liberals are retards" lie won't die, will it?

If people have to try this hard to be angry, to be offended -- such as with this BS OP -- then why would anyone take anything they say/think/believe seriously?

[rhett o rick]

165. So you support Obama's decision? The Republicans loved it.

"Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards. "

Once again, once again Obama turns his back on the left and sides with the Republicans. Get the message?? I do.

[Pooka Fey]

15. K&R

[amborin]

19. K&R

[stevedeshazer]

22. +1

[PufPuf23]

25. Sunstein is a scary creep.

It appears to me that the POTUS Obama WH wants to under mine Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Party.

I do not get why some DUers defend this bullshit.

[zalinda]

35. I am still gobsmacked that Rahm

made it impossible for anti-war dems to run in 2006. I didn't realize that they were REALLY working to destroy the party.

zalinda

[mmonk]

26. Cass Sunstein. Enough said.

[alp227]

31. playing the false equivalency game like so many naive fools after the Tuscon shooting

fire ASS Sunstein.

[LarryNM]

222. +1 n/t

[lostnfound]

37. Emotionally, this make me want to find something better to do on election day..

Logically, I will get my vote in, unless I get really busy doing something more fun or more productive...
If a person like me is feeling that way, I fear for the future under what, president mitt?

[TwilightGardener]

38. Quote does not say what the headline of this thread purports.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unvanguard]

39. Cass Sunstein is essentially correct, if you actually read what he says.

Some regulations are good. Some regulations are bad. It's silly and non-serious to pretend that all are one or the other. I don't know why AmericaBlog is having a fit--actually I do, it's in AmericaBlog's nature to have a fit about the most absurd things. :shrug:

[mmonk]

45. Which ones are the bad ones?

[Unvanguard]

48. Many licensing regulations are probably excessively burdensome.

Some regulations are the product of business interests seeking to protect themselves from competition. Some regulations are outdated. Some regulations are made in good faith, but are based on bad reasoning or an insufficient grasp of the relevant facts.

People make mistakes. It's implausible in the extreme that among the huge number of federal, state, and local regulations, there are not a substantial number that are misconceived and excessive. This obviously doesn't mean that we should do away with regulations in general: regulations serve important goods, and by and large we are probably not overregulated. But it does mean that it's worth not having a knee-jerk reaction of "Of course not!" to any proposal to weaken regulatory burdens in any context.

[mmonk]

51. I guess my problem is we were just plunged into a mini depression

largely and primarily caused by deregulation and have been steadily deregulating everything for 30 years. Now environmental laws are poised for an assault. The rhetoric from the right on our deregulated media is pretending that we are taxed and regulated too much when that is not our current problem. Reminds me of our current tax rebellion by the tea party while we have the lowest tax burden since the 50s. That is why I was asking for a list of sorts at present.

[Unvanguard]

61. But now you're arguing with the Republican Party, not with me.

And not with Cass Sunstein's statement, either. That's the point: he made a statement that should be a truism--to paraphrase, "Some regulations are bad, some regulations are good, and it's bad when dogmatic adherence to ideology makes people adopt absolutist positions on this issue"--and people are treating it as if it were somehow deeply offensive.

[Enthusiast]

118. I agree.

We never hear an alternative argument in the MSM.

If the right claims we are "drowning" in regulation, then we are drowning in regulation, regardless of the reality. If the right claims we are overtaxed or "taxed to death", we are taxed to death with no words to the contrary heard anywhere outside a few scant TV programs that most viewers aren't exposed to.

[DirkGently]

63. The whole comparison is a strawman. No one on the left spouts the equivalent of "job killing

regulations." It IS an oxymoron, but that's hardly a huge leftwing meme, now, is it?

There is no even-handed, equivalency argument to make, because the only ideologically extreme rhetoric here is on the right. No one on the left is demanding we add regulations to everything. The right is demanding we cut regulations on everything, and falsely arguing that the jobs crisis could somehow be alleviated by adding to the disastrous de-regulation which LED DIRECTLY TO THE CRISIS in the first place.

This is exactly the kind of bending over backwards to pretend there is some equivalency between rightwing insanity and normal liberal principles (like environmentalism) when there is not.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. exactly.

[Enthusiast]

119. PLUS ONE!.......nt

[nashville_brook]

180. [phone]

[nashville_brook]

70. so, it was a "mistake" to protect americans from smog?

during the bush administration...BUSH scientists said the safe range for ozone (smog) was 60-70 parts per billion. bush rolled back the amount to 75 ppb. now it's reinforced at 84 ppb -- well over what is assumed to be safe for human to breathe.

the problem here is that humans have become a "burden" to corporations.

[Unvanguard]

74. No. Specifics are a different matter.

So, argue with the Obama Administration on specifics. Contest their assessment of the evidence, of the likely harm from the smog, of the likely costs of compliance with the regulation. Those are all perfectly fair arguments to make. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the Obama Administration's decision on this point is unjustified and the lower limit should have been adopted. But attacking Cass Sunstein for stating the obvious doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[nashville_brook]

92. Sunstein's false equivalency creates an environment where specifics don't matter

[Unvanguard]

93. Sunstein's obviously true statement makes the precise point that specifics matter.

It doesn't pre-ordain the results of those specific inquiries.

[nashville_brook]

100. please explain how undermining advocacy for regulation improves the ability to regulate

[DissedByBush]

79. Some regulations are desired by industry

Established profession X notices too many people are getting into the popular profession, diluting the profits.

It goes to the state and convinces the legislature to put burdensome training, licensing and regulation on the profession.

Established players can afford these, and are usually grandfathered, but new entries have an extra burden to become competition.

Most people think bad regulation is just politicians getting out of hand, but the above is quite common.

[rhett o rick]

130. There was nothing "knee jerk" about this. Environmentalists have been working on these regulations

for years. Obama yielded once again to the corporatists.

[SidDithers]

58. +1. It's what Americablog does...nt

Sid

[Warren Stupidity]

86. No he is creating a false equivalency.

Republicans do in fact claim that all government regulation is 'job killing' and wrong. It is a cornerstone of their bullshit rightwing ideology. (An ideological viewpoint that is actually shared by much of the Democratic Party leadership as well.)

Liberals leftists and progressives do not, on the other hand, claim that all regulation is good. Instead they claim that government should regulate economic activity to prevent the abuses inherent in capitalism. This is not the claim that all regulations are good. It is the claim that Regulation of the Economy is a Proper Role of Government. Each regulation should of course be evaluated on its merits.

Specifically this is about the EPA ground level ozone regulations and the EPA proposal, a proposal to reduce permitted ozone levels because of the mountain of evidence that current regulated levels are dangerous. What liberals claimed was that THIS REGULATION WAS GOOD, what republicans claim is that ALL REGULATIONS ARE BAD, including this one. The administration, sadly, once again pandered to the right, trading off childhood asthma, heart and lung disease for some tactical decision about the next election. This administration, like the one before it, prefers to discard and ignore scientific evidence it considers inconvenient.

[Unvanguard]

110. No, Republicans don't actually claim that any more than liberals claim the opposite.

Nor does Cass Sunstein think that they do, or that liberals do. His point is not about what either side believes in theory, but about the kinds of attitudes they sometimes manifest in practice.

[jeff47]

198. So....been hiding under a rock?

Here, lemme help you:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22job+killing+regulation%22+republican

You'll find a lot of Republicans talking about "Job Killing Regulations". Such as this gem:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47064.html

Headline: Darrell Issa hunts ‘job-killing’ federal regulations

[Unvanguard]

209. Obviously Republicans think business is over-regulated.

That doesn't actually have anything to do with my point.

[jeff47]

210. So, "No, Republicans don't actually claim that" was just a keyboard spasm then? (nt)

[Unvanguard]

214. No. Different statements.

It is pretty clearly possible to believe (a) that we are overregulated and also (b) that there exist regulations that are good.

[jeff47]

216. Yet that's not what they are claiming.

Republicans are claiming all regulations are job-killing. That's why their agenda for the fall is to remove regulations.

They cite no beneficial regulations to be protected.

[DirkGently]

193. Thank you. Would that I had managed to say this so clearly & concisely. / thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. Show me one person on the Left who says that.

Just one.

More bullshit false equivalence.

[Unvanguard]

109. Show me one person on the Right who says that all regulations are bad.

:shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

125. Good point. So a double-false equivalence. However...

I believe I don't believe that the Left has any mirror images of Perry, Paul, Bachmann, and the rest of the "nuke Washington" brigade.

[Unvanguard]

212. Not a double false equivalence.

Cass Sunstein, whatever else you might say about him, is a smart guy and does not actually believe that anyone on the Left or Right takes themselves to be believing that all regulations are good or all regulations are bad. His point is that, nonetheless, people on both the Left and the Right sometimes, in practice, approach issues surrounding regulations as if all regulations were good or all regulations were bad, and that, instead, the right course is to evaluate regulations on their specific merits.

That is all his statement says. His statement is correct about all of those things. You are also correct--absolutely and indisputably correct--that there are no liberal or Democratic equivalents of Perry, Paul, Bachmann, and their like. But it doesn't follow that liberals and leftists are never too quick to leap to conclusions about the merits of regulations. Ironically, the reaction to Sunstein's statement itself illustrates this fact, as if it were so horrible to acknowledge what is plainly obvious, that some regulations do indeed harm the economy to no proportionate benefit.

[sabrina 1]

240. Can you quote some Republicans who have said that

Environmental regulations are good?

[nashville_brook]

181. Alan Greenspan.

[DirkGently]

195. Show me one that doesn't use "job killing deregulation" disingenuously to mean, "profit-reducing."

[jeff47]

199. How 'bout Daryl Issa and the entire Republican House Caucus?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47064.html

[mfcorey1]

42. Another lie for the brainwashing campaign. nt

[Jamastiene]

46. K&R

[Doctor_J]

53. Many here at DU equate lefties of all stripe with Republicans

The WH thinks they can garner enough votes from "the center" to go with those lefties who will vote with them because they have nowhere else to go. These weekly bouts of liberal bashing from Obama are getting very irritating to me.

[DirkGently]

65. What a weird thought inversion that, is eh? Lefties critique Obama, & are therefore Republicans? Er?

[Doctor_J]

103. You have it exactly backward. The White continually bashes the left more than

they do the Republicans. Republicans also bash the left continuously. This is just one more way this admin is just like Republicans (along with most of their policies)

[DirkGently]

152. I think you understood my post exactly backward. We are addressing two sides of the same coin

My point is that the more ruthless flavor of Obama defense here has lately embarked on a campaign of suggesting liberals who criticize Obama are somehow allied with the right. THEY have confused party and principles with the individual politician, President Obama, and therefore weirdly conclude that anyone with any criticism whatsoever for the President, is therefore helping rightwingers.

Hard to follow the convoluted illogic, I know. But it's out there. And in here.

[joshcryer]

190. The White House is counting on the Obama bashing from the left bringing out the vote.

It's ramped up a hundred fold in the past year at least, and Obama's numbers are just getting better.

[Doctor_J]

55. Seems the Obama WH wants a right-wing Congress next time

From the article:

"If we let the White House keep criticizing Dems in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November.

Amen. I can easily see the Repukes using Obama's liberal-bashing quotes in campaign ads against liberals in the Congressional races next year. It could very well be that the president would rather have a right-wing Congress in 2013.

[xocet]

89. It won't bother him. He'll just have to compromise harder with a fully Republican Congress....

presuming of course that he manages to be re-elected.

However,I doubt he will be able to be re-elected. The Republicans will likely win the election and will have someone whom they can anoint as the second-coming of Ronald Reagan. Beyond that, they will have learned that absolutely no behavior is too unseemly and that such behavior will allow them to reap political rewards. That is the course that they are on at the moment anyway.

Take the recent history of Republicans in government:

They investigated Clinton to the hilt.
They temporarily shut down the government.
They impeached Clinton.
They manipulated the election in 2000 and had the Supreme Court decide it.
They worked to deregulate as much as they could.
They invaded Iraq etc.
They are fully intent on rendering the current Administration ineffective and using this strategy to remove the Democrats from office.

They will be rewarded with victory across the board in the 2012 election if history is any indication of the future.

Until they are opposed openly and strongly, they will not quit this behavior - if even then.

Why should they? On balance they are achieving their goals. Their true constituency is getting wealthier and wealthier.

[neverforget]

62. Job kill regulations? You mean like the ones that cleaned the water we drink and the air we breathe?

The regulations for safe products? And speaking of regulations, wasn't it a lack of regulations that led to the economic collapse of 2008 in the housing market? The credit default swaps? I know, who needs "job killing regulations"? Stupid fucking hippies.

[defendandprotect]

68. Summation: Corporations need to destroy plant, nature, humans to create jobs" ... !!!

Had we never had an industrial revolution or "bus-i-ness" we'd be ahead of the

game --

Global Warming is the most serious threat we face -- compliments of elites/corporations/

capitalism --


The public is 2/3rds of the economy -- we don't need corporations to get what we need.

[nashville_brook]

77. +1 it's the humans vs the dollars

[Lorien]

235. The real irony; more regulation would have provided loads of jobs

retrofitting all of those power plants so that they pollute less, then monitoring the smog levels? HUGE infrastructure project; up to 90 billion dollars worth. Exactly what the economy needs. The only cost is to PROFITS!

[defendandprotect]

242. +1 --

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sufrommich]

85. That is a link to a site that promotes 3rd party voting:

[matt819]

66. And those kind of insults - of your own voters - is offensive

Do they really want Dems to go to the polls and only grudgingly vote for Obama? Or are they hoping to find that final straw that keeps Dems from the polls in order, for some obscure strategic reason, to give the WH to the teapartiers?

This is insanity.

[defendandprotect]

71. A president behaving as if he doesn't care if he wins ... and destroying the party ... hmmm?

[seabeyond]

75. no, they did not call environmentalists all those name you accused them of saying. nt

[DirkGently]

84. Yes, in effect he did. He called liberal opposition to "job-killing regulation" talk silly & unser-

ious. He did it by making up a dishonestly re-interpreted version of the liberal view, about "job-killing regulation" being "an oxymoron." Well, it generally IS an oxymoron, in fact, but that is also not the primary liberal opposition to the rightwing meme of "job-killing regulation." The primary opposition to that meme is that it is a lie used to support the precise type of deregulation that CAUSED the current crisis.

The suggestion is quite explicitly that somehow there is an unreasonable "silly and unserious" demand from liberals for overregulation. There is no such demand. There is no liberal equivalent of the rightwing "job-killing regulation" propaganda. We are not faced with "silly unserious" arguments from "both sides."

We have one silly, unserious, dishonest, destructive, guilty side, pretending that somehow the answer the crisis that was caused by deregulation is ... deregulation.

To say anything else is deliberately obfuscate and try to find some way to blame and bash liberals and environmentalists, who are RIGHT about this issue, whereas the rightwingers are WRONG.

It's not too much to ask for the administration to acknowledge that, I think.

[seabeyond]

90. if you have to say.. in effect, then you lose the stand. he did not call environmentalist those

names. he considers their position silliness.

that is dissferent from saying envirmentalist are silly, ect...

i say to my child, what you did was stupid. YOU CALLED ME STUPID. no, i didnt. what you did was stupid

[DirkGently]

148. You may have that distinction without difference, if you want it. The OP loses nothing by it.

[seabeyond]

154. it does for me. making things up in headlines takes away from the substance.

there is too much of that, in my opinion.

sensationalism. titilation. to be read. instead of laying out the truth and being confident in that to draw the reader

honesty issue, in my book

[DirkGently]

187. Nothing was made up. Who did Sunstein mean, if not environmentalists? What was he saying, if not

that they're silly and unserious? He made up an entire false premise to describe the "other side" opposed to the "Job killing regulations" meme.

What, he was actually talking to the vast legions of pro-regulations extremists, who, having said at some point that "job killing regulations are an oxymoron," foolishly fail to note the REAL job killing regulations that exist, somewhere?

Just because the guy was sleazy and careful and indirect in saying what he was saying, doesn't mean he didn't say it.

Did you and the others here see some quote marks somewhere in the headline that I missed?


I see the same cutesy dodge here on DU all the time in call-out threads. They usually say something like, "We have two points of view here on DU. Reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful Americans who think _____ (reasonable opinion) about President Obama, and demented assholes who think ________ (completely unreasonable one-sided point of view). These people who think (unreasonable, one-sided point of view) need to GTFO!!!"

:D

Does anyone actually think the attack is supposed to be limited to just people who believe they have an insane, one-sided point of view? No. But when the "other side," whatever it may be, shows up to defend itself, the first dishonest reply is always, "Oh, well, if you don't have an insane, one-sided point of view, I wasn't talking to you."

Cheap parlor tricks. Cheap shots. We all know what he meant, who he was talking to, and that his characterization of the "other side" was a dishonest attack.



edited for extra civility

[nashville_brook]

91. wow, this nails it.

[defendandprotect]

145. Let's be clear about what corporations are doing -- "killing the planet/humans" -- !!!

However, as we all know, GREEN alternatives create jobs --

just not the kind of planet polluting, Global Warming type jobs that make

fortunes for capitalist criminals!

[chervilant]

186. Well, now...

I notice the 'Un' DUer didn't bother to condescendingly refute your final erudite post...

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Rahm is gone but his thinking is not

[Hawkowl]

97. Now we know it's Obama's thinking

It is apparent that this is Obama's ideology and that people should no longer paint Obama as well intentioned but simple steered wrong by his advisors. Rahm is gone. Larry Summers is gone and others will leave but Obama's thinking will remain rigid. He has a right wing/corporate bent and he is not capitulating time after time. He is simply advancing his own beliefs and policy agenda.

[hfojvt]

80. so you believe that all environmentalists believe

that there is no such thing as a job killing regulation?

Sad to see a ginned up attack on Obama on the front page of DU.

This is an example, IMO, of people eager to find reasons to get angry at Obama. Even if they gotta make them up.

[Jamastiene]

82. I regret that I only have

one K&R that I can give this.

Well...I can :kick: it again.

"If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November."

[struggle4progress]

83. John Aravosis: driving wedges as fast as he can

[FreeState]

129. Nothing like attacking the messenger rather than the message n/t

[struggle4progress]

133. I find the John Aravosis Show predictable: his magic act involves one trick: "Watch me

pull a wedge out of my hat!"

Maybe some folk are captivated by the drumroll and the limelight accompanying this? I dunno

I just see the same old stale trick, again and again, with mediocre stagecraft

[FreeState]

197. Which has what to do with the actually topic?

Like I said attack the message not the messenger.

[Enrique]

88. those are the same silly lefties that said offshore drilling was dangerous

oh, wait...

[tpsbmam]

95. Unfair to say the "White House" said that (which is stupid anyway.....not on your part, n_b, but as

an original title). It was a member of the Obama administration who said this, not the man himself. That said, I do believe that Sunstein, Emanuel and the other members of the administration who've made nasty cracks about progressives and more do reflect Obama's mindset. It's just misleading to imply this comes directly from Obama.

That said, given Obama's poor environmental record, he and his administration are sounding more and more like ReTHUGS who want to undermine many hard-fought EPA/environmental regulations that have made a dent in improving air quality, water quality, modest environmental protections and more.

And like so many others I'm fed up with Obama and members of his administration throwing progressives, environmentalists, unions, etc under the bus while they kiss up to conservatives and fucking teabaggers!

[Doctor_J]

102. A member of the Obama White House IS The White House

Unless Sunstein is fired before sunset, we can safely assume that she's speaking for the president.

[sabrina 1]

112. Amazing how quickly Van Jones was gone. But then,

they were worried about what Republicans might think of someone signing a petition years ago stating that they did not exactly buy the official version of 9/11 like a majority of the American people.

And how quickly Shirley Sherrod got a call telling her to offer her resignation, because OMG! Andrew Breitbart accused her of something, they didn't even wait to see WHAT before telling her to quit.

Any member of the administration who upsets a Republican? They are gone, in a flash. But upsetting Liberals? That seems to be something to be proud of in this Administration.

Susstein will probably be promoted.

[nashville_brook]

120. +1

[LarryNM]

224. +1 n/t

[MoonRiver]

106. Way to stabilize your base support.

:eyes:

[PatrynXX]

113. I hope he fixes that. they've done that shit before

Rahm doesn't seem to be part of the team anymore because of it.

[RedCloud]

114. Do not fuck with this planet

[Lorien]

237. When they fuck with the planet, they fuck with US!

They should be taught not to do either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVxI6XZAuE

[Jakes Progress]

121. A reagan democrat administration.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense. (Yes, I know. reagan democrats don't make sense. That's why it is a good explanation for what the WH keeps doing.)

[Warren DeMontague]

122. No, that's not what they said.

Not even close.

One guy called one 3 word term ridiculous, silly, and not serious.

Neither he, nor "The White House" said that about "environmentalists".

[TwilightGardener]

131. Truth...not mattering so much here.

[DirkGently]

182. Technically, the Head of WH Information didn't call out anyone. Because his whole premise is a lie.

And a deliberate one. I love the attempts here to put grammar and syntax over meaning. Sunstein, in the context of the current debate on regulation, which concerns the environment most specifically, invented a liberal talking point, then condemned it as silly and unserious. No one's pounding "job-killing regulations are an oxymoron" the way Republicans are pounding "job-killing regulations." To the extent anyone is, they're not wrong. Moreover, there is simply no unreasonable, regulation crazed equivalent to the "no job-killing regulations" meme put forward by Republicans.

What Sunstein implied is that someone out there, presumably those saying the "job-killinng regulations" jingle is nuts, are wrong, which would be environmentalists, and that they also have some crazed pro-regulation ideological zeal.

Right.

They don't. This WAS an official White House comment, and it once again found a way to smear the left and legitimize the nuttiest Republican rhetoric. Oh, just some of them take this de-regulation thing too far. Just as many fail to see that SOME regulations are job killers.

It was pure sleaze. And it was calculated sleaze. It would take a while to even think up such an awkward, backhanded way to avoid saying the Republicans are wrong. So why do it?

[Warren DeMontague]

244. You know what, Dirk? THAT would make a much better OP on the subject than the one up top, here.

Because you're giving a critique of what actually was said, and why, instead of just making shit up and then having a tantrum about the stuff you imagined you heard.

[Deep13]

137. Examining the NYT article, not seeing any ad hominem attacks on environmentalists. nt

[SidDithers]

140. You won't find what's not there...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[DirkGently]

167. Other than a WH official inventing a non-existent leftwing pro-regulation extremism, you mean?

Cass Sunstein, Obama's head of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, says it's not JUST the false meme of "job-killing regulations" that's "silly and unserious," but an imaginary leftwing view that "job-killing regulations are an oxymoron" that we have to worry about. Two equally ridiculous positions, he says.

Except, of course, that 1) Job-killing regulations ARE an oxymoron, and 2) That's not a meme environmentalists or the left are pounding anywhere. They'd like regulations that protect people. From things like air and water pollution, as well as things like, say, unregulated derivatives markets.

Like any non-silly, serious person would. But apparently the White House isn't comfortable saying the Republicans have it DEAD WRONG, which they do. So instead, it's taking a "fair and balanced approach," and pretending we have equally extreme left and right arguments.

This was definitely careful phrasing. Careful to marginalize and insult the left, while avoiding any confrontation with Republicans.

And it's dishonest bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. There's a lot of dishonest bullshit around, these days.

Hey- I'm sure Job-Killing regulations are NOT an oxymoron. I'm sure some regulations DO kill jobs, like the job of the guy who drives the nuclear waste to the river in the truck and dumps it out in the middle of the night. That doesn't mean the 'job' is one to protect, nor does it mean that the regulations are bad.

But you're right, there was an attempt at framing here that was designed to place the administration 'squarely in the middle' between one side and another. I can understand being pissed off at what actually was said.

What I don't like is the misrepresenting of what was said and pretending it was something else- because now probably half this thread is convinced that Obama personally, literally, "called environmentalists silly" and "told them to fuck off".

[Deep13]

267. The criticism is not ad hominem and is directed to one argument...

...and not to "environmentalists."

[ecstatic]

275. You can't be serious. Don't you have anything better to do?

JFC

[CakeGrrl]

139. More anti-WH fodder from ex-GOP staffer-turned-"Proud Firebagger" Avarosis.

Fanning the flames of the "he's just not that into you" screed.

Useless, hyperbolic divide-and-conquer.

[ProSense]

142. "The administration’s clean air agenda has been its greatest success story at EPA."

John Walke, senior attorney and the Director of NRDC's Clean Air Program

[philly_bob]

151. Word games: is job-killing regulation an oxymoron? Chill out. (nt)

[scentopine]

158. Silly is as silly does. A look at Cass Sunstein. Obama's Minister of Information is dangerous....

Just to remind people that the "centrist" propaganda artist attacking liberals and environmentalists as "silly" is none other than Cass Sunstein. If the name doesn't make your skin crawl, it should. He has been advocating planting government spies on web sites within organizations for years. And, he is Obama's right hand man.

If you wonder why democratic leadership hates liberals and environmentalists, start by understanding the Rovian mind of anyone who would appoint the neo-lib/neo-con Frankenstein known as Cass Sunstein to public office.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

{continues]

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous. Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim. More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture: when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes. That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

You can keep parsing the words and making academic arguments, but the end is the same. This administration is deliberately attacking liberals while not providing us any representation. The DLC is alive and well.

Liberals are unrepresented. This is because democrats do not want liberals to vote for them. Democrats would rather have more republicans and tea baggers in the democratic party. Obama is gambling that they can deliberately piss off liberals such that they all stay home. That's how confident democrats are of winning big in next elections.

edit: typos, spelling

[tularetom]

161. This horse's ass is the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

And he actually believes the crap he's spouting?

He ought to be fired at once.

And if he isn't then the person who hired him should be fired.

I've said it before - Obama is not being well served by the people he selected for his cabinet and staff. That's the charitable explanation and the one I still believe.

Because the alternate explanation is - Obama actually agrees with this kind of shit.

[nashville_brook]

178. Sunstein was on the short list for Stevens' Supreme Court seat

and I imagine he's next in line should he need to fill another seat.

that would give us a "lifetime" of this ass. on the Supreme Court. yesh..

[Divernan]

258. If Obama's re-elected, this is the kind of man he would nominate to the USSC ?Jesus wept!

Legal philosophy

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal,<11> despite SUNSTEIN'S PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GEORGE W. BUSH'S JUDICIAL NOMINEES MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL AND JOHN G. ROBERTS,<12> as well as providing STRONG THEORETICAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.<13>

(This next portion is the most horrifying proposal I, as a retired lawyer and former law professor, have ever heard. Sunstein says federal judges should interpret law based on the commitments/beliefs of whomever is the current President AND those who operate "under him"!)

"The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein."

Military commissions

In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist that "nder existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" the argument from law professor George Fletcher that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basis.

[scentopine]

196. Decriminalized torture and wiretaps. Appoints web spy advocate to head Information Office...

he believes, all right. Actions speak louder than words.

[defendandprotect]

166. Just want to point out WH is also bashing their EPA advisors -- !!!

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

[defendandprotect]

171. If an uprising is coming, then certainly we should turn to AA and GLBT for advice -- !!!

http://www.americablog.com/2011/09/white-house-calls-en...

You can keep hoping and praying that the President will take you seriously, or you can get in his face like gay activists did when we found that our groups' strategy of playing nice was getting us nowhere. This White House does not respect the Democratic base or core Democratic issues. They only respect people who challenge them -- people who "take hostages," to quote the President.

(snip)

More food for thought, for those who might suggest we just let this slide. If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November.

It's not disloyal speaking up. It's disloyal watching an electoral train wreck coming your way, and doing nothing about it.




Haven't really seen anyone posting on the thread mentioning Global Warming --

Astonishing!


:hi:

[OwnedByFerrets]

173. K and R

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

176. Your title misquotes what was said

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

[DirkGently]

183. The title captures exactly what was said. To lay out Sunstein's whole strawman requires a paragraph.

But hey, don't let meaning get in the way of avoiding the truth.

[scentopine]

185. What part of this quote is misquoted? Here is what I read...

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

Emphasis mine, for those hard of reading and comprehending. This is a classic centrist false equivocation of the extreme right wing who wield enormous influence and power over all legislation and White House's political direction and the "left-wing" who have been shut out of politics for about 30 years.

Environmentalists have zero influence, they can't buy Obama and the democratic leadership like the baggers and Wall Street CEOs. To claim left and right are equally discounted is utterly preposterous. No, it's worse than that. It is a bold face lie.

[gateley]

194. That's not quite what he said -- the POLICIES are silly and have

no place in a SERIOUS discussion and the CLAIMS were as silly as those of the RW.

I hate the inflammatory ways people "interpret" stuff like this and get everyone all riled up. What he said was bad enough -- why feel the need to fan the flames?

AND it's some WH staffer, not the President.

That being said, fuck him!

[scentopine]

201. Please elaborate the exact policies that you believe are silly and non-serious?

Ozone regulations? Global warming? Oil spills in Gulf of Mexico? Fraking? Mine waste?

Centrists and other right wingers sound just like the Wall Street CEOs who said catalytic convertor would destroy life on Earth and that cars with seat belts and then air bags were actually deadlier than cars without them.

Same ones who say car seats are job destroyers.

So, please be specific, how exactly is the "left wing" who has zero political influence, and who Democrats don't want to vote for them, equivalent to the right wing (i.e. centrists, tea baggers and other right wingers) who have enormous influence over public policy by billions in cash donations to advance their interests/

Please, tell us all. We are dying to know the truth from you.

(BTW- I'm still waiting for Rick Perry to call the tea baggers silly. Since everything is fair and balanced as you imply.)

[gateley]

213. For the love of God, I'm implying everything is fair and balanced?

This is the problem with message boards, the meaning of the message is often lost and people erroneously "know" what you are really saying.

I wasn't commenting on the policies at all. Sheesh!

What, you think I'd feel ozone regulations or any other environmental protections are silly? Then what the fuck would I be doing on DU?

Keep your snarky "we are dying to know the truth from you".

See ya.

[scentopine]

221. Please elaborate on the exact policies you believe are silly... -nt

[DirkGently]

202. DUPE. Weird.

[DirkGently]

203. The WH Office of Information IS the WH. And the "policies" he called silly don't exist.

It's a bit much to accurately capture in a headline. What the WH Office of Information head did was pretend that there are crazed, pro-regulation people out there somewhere, just as "silly" and "unserious" as Republicans chanting about "job-killing regulations." Environmentalists might assume he was talking about them, even though "the position that 'job-killing regulations' are an oxymoron' is both true, and not put forward with anything resembling the vehemence of the Republican position.

What he actually did was make up a lie about anyone opposed to the most extreme Republican position, to avoid pointing out that they're wrong, and to suggest that somehow people seeking regulations (like environmentalists) are "just as silly."

It was a nasty piece of calculated slander.

[jeff47]

204. To claim the policies have nothing to do with the people is a stupid argument. (nt)

[gateley]

211. I'm stupid. nt

[jeff47]

220. Ok, lesson #1: Inanimate objects can't be "silly" or "unserious". They simply exist.

On the other hand, the people who support those policies can be "silly" and "unserious".

To hide behind "he was only critiquing policy!" is pointless sophistry.

[scentopine]

205. Rick Perry calls right wing "silly, as bad as left wing, with no place in serious discussions"...

edited to add (because some numb nuts might think that he would actually say something as stupid and fucked up as that), neither Perry nor any of his top officials would say anything as stupid and fucked up as that.

Goddam the democratic party for sheer arrogance and open contempt of millions of liberal voters.

[JoeyT]

206. The quote doesn't say what it says it says!!!111

At least it doesn't if you completely ignore context, which is liberals complaining about an oil pipeline and rolling back environmental regulations. Then it says exactly what the OP says it does.

[maryf]

207. Regulations only mitigate damages...

We the people have to start making the laws for the environment, not just write regulations to keep the industries creating too much damage...now its the industries writing the laws via their lobbyists hands in the legislators pockets, and allowing regulators to make their actions more palatable to us...
k&r

[Tripod]

208. Thanks for the post. K-R. n/t

[BlueIris]

219. Reading the WH's criticisms of "left wing" anything is painful for me.

The president was elected as the result of the left wing. It's fundamentally disrespectful and wrong to rip the people whose influence (and work) got him this job, especially because the left is the sole driving force behind the functionability of campaign offices. Moderates? Centrists? Conservatives? Do not do anything in those offices. So the WH brazenly insulting the "left" isn't just rude, it's bad strategy.

And offensive to boot. This Administration has totally lost me.

[scentopine]

223. Democratic party thinks every liberal can stay home, and Obama will still win by a landslide...

Obama and the centrists believe it's the republican cross over voters (aka independents) that win elections, so that is why he represents republicans and other right wingers and tells liberals to fuck-off.

Democrats hold their noses at liberals. Instead democrats negotiate and compromise with more reasonable people like John Boehner and his tea baggers.

So after all the liberal punching here on DU, there's only one of two things centrists will say after 2012:

"Obama won because his right wing policies are reminiscent of Reagan and they appeal to republicans. So we must stay the course."

or

"Obama lost, its all the fault of liberals because they stayed home."

So, centrists are telling us liberals are damned and without representation no matter what happens. On other hand, if Obama want the liberal vote, he better represent.

Hell will freeze over first.

[nashville_brook]

251. very well said.

[MrMickeysMom]

225. The WH does a lot of silly things themselves...

Like, for instance, never taking seriously, zero jobs created and the interests on bonds.... Hey, the WH has been kissing the ass of Wall Street and the GOP... and still we have the unemployed. I love that Krugman said,

And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

Silly ole White House!

Edit: I actually had "GOD" instead of "GOP"! Hey, they are most likely worshiped the same way by the Silly President and all his Cabinet.

[cprise]

228. The WH is pushing false equivalency

In other news: Civil rights protesters are just as bad as the KKK.

[upi402]

236. Quoting Teabagger talking points...

It's far worse than an electoral trainwreck, or political whoring (imho).

[Lorien]

238. Yeah, teabaggers always accuse Obama of behaving like a republican.

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

269. crazy

don't bother... if people aren't seeing it now, my bet is they never intend to.

[begin_within]

239. I call the Obama administration "ridiculous," "silly," not "serious" and I equate them to GOPers

[Shining Jack]

247. +1

[xxqqqzme]

249. "...They only respect people who challenge them

-- people who "take hostages," to quote the President..."

We are the hostages and he is the person doing the taking.

[Denzil_DC]

261. Unrec for blatant clutching in the title,not borne out by the post,

and the quotes therein being wilfully misinterpreted to provoke maximum outrage.

It's a tactic the HuffPo perfected.

It's "Rahm called us 'retarded'" all over again. Thus a crap meme is born.

[midnight]

262. K&R This name calling is unfortunate... Not a way to pick up votes in an

extremely important election cycle...

[caseymoz]

263. You're right that this White House responds only to those who go militant

It's worked for Repubs. It has worked for gays. You're correct and I'm surprised I didn't understand that before. It will respond to the left as it does with Repubs if we simply dig our heels in and threaten to sink either it or the whole country, just the way Repubs played chicken with the debt ceiling.

Obama has earned this treatment from the left and we need to stop treating him as a friend.

[nashville_brook]

265. bottom line is, it isn't personal, and neither they nor we should treat it that way...

this is an exchange of services like any other. we either negotiate (or fight) in earnest or we walk away.

no one goes to Washington to make friends, and the left needs to understand that Obama does not want to be our friend...and he doesn't respect us. We can't and shouldn't change the first item, but we sure as hell can (and must) change the second.

[ZombieHorde]

264. The interpretation in the subject line is "ridiculous," "silly," and not "serious."

A very silly interpretation indeed.

[fascisthunter]

268. He's a Neo-liberal with a "D" next to his name

he is as right wing as most mederate republicans and that's not saying much for him or his supporters. See any policy that is the antithesis of what traditionally was democratic(left) is embraced by this admin and their staunch supporters. I say the tent is way too big and it is time for the left to take the dem party back from these trolls.

[Bake]

270. But .. but .. he hasn't lost the base ...

Or so we keep being told. Pictures and all.

Bake

[nashville_brook]

273. they must believe...or else.

(warning: not intended to suggest that Obama is actually a space alien)

[DirkGently]

283. Nice disclaimer!

:D

[and-justice-for-all]

284. That is what Cass Sunstein says....but where does Obama stand?