Fox News: At it again

[VDB]

Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

The idea that the GOP should stop opposing the ACA because it's passed is literally foreign to me. Should they stop trying to rollback the Patriot Act or end the prohibition on marijuana? (not that anyone is doing that)

They'll always oppose the ACA; no one's expecting that to change. We're talking about the way that opposition is manifested and what they believe to be realistic options for getting their way. Would you support shutting down ("non-essential") government functions over a minority's opposition to marijuana prohibition? Well, some people might... but would that be reasonable? Or would navigating the usual legislative process, using the votes at your disposal and bringing public opinion to bear if you can, be the more appropriate route?

As I said, I am not endorsing what is obviously a losing strategy.

But aren't you? Or at least declining to call out the ridiculousness of it?

Unless both sides are coming to the table in good faith, I can't ascribe greater blame to one any more than the other.

Isn't it OK to ascribe greater blame to the only side that seems to believe there's a table in the first place and will undertake disproportionately drastic measures just to prove it?

[VDB]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

:-o

FN.com's resident liberal columnist.

Gotta keep it fair and balanced.

[runawayjimbo]

Why should Obama and his party be under any obligation to undo or compromise their own major legislative accomplishment (don't read that as a value judgment if you don't want) of recent years when they don't have to? It's not like we're talking about finding middle ground for the benefit of passing the ACA -- it's already been passed!

The idea that the GOP should stop opposing the ACA because it's passed is literally foreign to me. Should they stop trying to rollback the Patriot Act or end the prohibition on marijuana? (not that anyone is doing that)

They'll always oppose the ACA; no one's expecting that to change. We're talking about the way that opposition is manifested and what they believe to be realistic options for getting their way. Would you support shutting down ("non-essential") government functions over a minority's opposition to marijuana prohibition? Well, some people might... but would that be reasonable? Or would navigating the usual legislative process, using the votes at your disposal and bringing public opinion to bear if you can, be the more appropriate route?

Yes, that would be more appropriate. But doesn't the fact that one side (apparently) CAN shut down the gov't kinda prove we don't have any money left? Spending needs to be cut, and when you live on CRs, you will be "threatening" a gov't shutdown by definition. Pass a budget, and then they can bitch about GOP intransigence.

As I said, I am not endorsing what is obviously a losing strategy.

But aren't you? Or at least declining to call out the ridiculousness of it?

It's ridiculous.

Unless both sides are coming to the table in good faith, I can't ascribe greater blame to one any more than the other.

Isn't it OK to ascribe greater blame to the only side that seems to believe there's a table in the first place and will undertake disproportionately drastic measures just to prove it?

Wait, who's at the table?

[sls.stormyrider]

The thing is here the GOP hates ACA mainly because it's Obama's. The ACA is far from perfect and needs to be fixed, but consider recent history

-the individual mandate was initially proposed by Dole and supported by Newt in the 90s. Romney won't admit it now but he thought it was a pretty damn good idea 10 years ago

-the ethics consults, which were soon to be labelled death panels, is an idea floated by a Republican

-health insurance exchanges were initially proposed by GWB

-The GOP said that we're gonna make health care reform Obama's Waterloo before the process of writing the bill got even started. All they knew about it at the time was that the plan was to provide universal coverage and it would have been passed by a democratic congress and WH. It's kinda like getting the results of a pregnancy test, and then saying the baby's ugly the next day.

they just want to bring Obama down.

the Dems can be assholes too, but no to this degree. Not even close

[VDB]

Come on, sls. Everyone knows all babies are ugly.

[VDB]

So about that deal with the WWII memorial the other day, when vets pushed aside barriers to visit the off-limits site: The GOP and its allies at FN are accusing the Obama administration of "arbitrarily" closing off this and other memorials for political gain, in order to make people "feel the pain" of the shutdown.

Yesterday, I was actually looking at Glenn Beck's website (don't ask), where was published an article about an interview he had done with Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert. They were talking about the WWII memorial incident, and Louie straight up said it must be some kind of Obama conspiracy to close the monument -- just to be dicks, or to stick it to old vets, or something.

This is the irrational mind at work. The Republican party decided to go down this course, and now they are complaining about its impact. It is a shame that WWII vets can't visit the memorial (actually, they're all succeeding in doing so anyway), yes. Just as it's a shame that missing hikers aren't being rescued, or vacations to national parks are being scuttled, or businesses that depend on federal regulators are being tied up, or D.C. might not get its trash collected... There was a story on NPR this morning about how national parks and monuments are being shut down all over, and they are keeping people out. The Park Service operates under a mandate that includes things that require funding in order to carry out... it's not like they're doing this just for kicks. This is what happens when you refuse to fund the government. To suddenly throw your hands up and cry "conspiracy" or "Obama hates vets" is grossly disingenuous at best.

Now, I have no doubt that Obama and the Dems will milk this shutdown situation for some extra political gain. They are politicians too, after all. They'll do this because they perceive that the GOP has more to lose from the shutdown than the Dems do. They will let the pain linger until the GOP finally blinks and backs down. And then, they hope, the GOP will look like the idiots in all of this. It's a shitty thing all the way around. But that's bigger picture stuff. For the GOP to complain about specific park closures or act like the Obama administration is acting with malicious temerity in rolling out the effects of the shutdown is foolish.

[runawayjimbo]

I think the complaint was more that the administration directed park security to put barricades around an open-air, privately funded 24-hr park that happen to be on public land.

So yes, the faux-outrage is predictably nonsensical, but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

[twatts]

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

[VDB]

To hear the National Park Service (which administers the memorial) explain it, they are keeping people out of parks everywhere because to just leave them open and unstaffed would invite vandalism, theft, etc.

Of course, you could argue that the same people who are in charge of enforcing a park closure (there is security around, apparently) could be used to protect parks from the kind of harm that they are afraid would occur during a free-for-all. (This would be easier done at a small memorial versus, say, Yellowstone.) But there is also within the NPS mandate things that talk about having to "accommodate" visitors -- to include providing facilities, etc. I don't know the bathroom situation at the WWII memorial. Maybe if they aren't able to staff a place with janitors they can't be open? Or maybe the NPS doesn't technically have the leeway to selectively enforce a closure.

I agree that it's all dumb and unfortunate. I'm not ready to cry "conspiracy" so much as "effects of a shutdown" -- even if said shutdown is carried out with an entirely typical lack of nuance or careful thought.

[VDB]

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

Not to mention, applications for benefits through the VA, which had been catching up from a big backlog, are once again being delayed to the detriment of veterans.

[runawayjimbo]

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

I don't believe that few care about that.

[twatts]

but the decision to "close" the park seems similarly petty, no?

That's what "non-essential" means...

Funny how few seem to care that Federal Funding of Meals On Wheels (which feeds more Veterans than were inconvenienced by barricades) now has been cut...  Oh, maybe not funny at all...

Terry

I don't believe that few care about that.

I'll reiterate, "few at Fox"...  I'd venture to guess that those that are now not being fed care quite a bit  :-P

Terry

[VDB]

No doubt people do care (especially those impacted), but it's not the kind of disproportionately important, make-a-show-of-it stuff that our American public, politicians and media typically go for. Hence the hubbub over the WWII memorial, which has been a front-page story on FN.com for at least two days this week.

That's no disrespect to the WWII vets who travelled to Washington to visit their memorial -- I'm glad they were able to get in, and I'd be just as pissed if I were there with one of my grandfathers and someone behind a metal fence tried to turn us away.

[twatts]

No doubt people do care (especially those impacted), but it's not the kind of disproportionately important, make-a-show-of-it stuff that our American public, politicians and media typically go for. Hence the hubbub over the WWII memorial, which has been a front-page story on FN.com for at least two days this week.

That's no disrespect to the WWII vets who travelled to Washington to visit their memorial -- I'm glad they were able to get in, and I'd be just as pissed if I were there with one of my grandfathers and someone behind a metal fence tried to turn us away.

No doubt, who wouldn't be pissed???  But that's what happens when you let the Gov't shutdown... 

Terry

[Hicks]

Add being insufferable debbie downers to the list of why Fox News sucks.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/17/dr-manny-america-obsession-with-zombies-is-hurting-our-society/