Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[eyeresist]

For the curious, the original passages:

• The debt-ceiling debate was an act of "political terrorism," in which the GOP concocted a crisis and used it to ensure that the party's unprecedented demands were met. [Lofgren] writes: "Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care."

• The August FAA reauthorization fight was another instance such of hostage-taking: "Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers, and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel—how prudent is that?—in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization."

[ibanezmonster]

Herman Cain...?

I know he lacks political experience, but what the country needs right now is a businessman- someone who knows economics. Obama and the Republican candidates look awful, but this guy I might actually end up wanting to vote for!  (we'll see)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Herman Cain...?

I know he lacks political experience, but what the country needs right now is a businessman- someone who knows economics.

Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good? BTW isn't Romney a businessman?

on Perry

An interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/09/28/why-rick-perry-and-the-texan-plutocracy-hate-america/

[Daverz]

BTW isn't Romney a businessman?

Yes, but more of the job destroying kind than the job creating kind.

An interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:

For some people the Civil War is not settled.

[kishnevi]

Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good? BTW isn't Romney a businessman?

on Perry

An interesting alt-right take on the problem with Texas politicians. Are they Texan nationalists who hate America?:

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/09/28/why-rick-perry-and-the-texan-plutocracy-hate-america/

They're American nationalists who hate America is a better description.  But they hate the rest of the world even more.  I'm not really familiar with the Russian political spectrum, so I don't know what to point to as an Russian equivalent.  Perhaps you would need to mix an unreconstructed Stalinist with an very Orthodox (in the religious sense) monarchist and throw in a dash of neoNazism to get an Russian version.

At any rate, there are a number of people like this, and they're usually rather loud and noisy on the Internet, so it's hard to say how large a group they are and how influential (plus it is in the interest of the professional Left and the news organizations to exaggerate their size and influence)--but I think, thank God, their bark is much bigger than their bite so far.

[Todd]

Perhaps you would need to mix an unreconstructed Stalinist with an very Orthodox (in the religious sense) monarchist and throw in a dash of neoNazism to get an Russian version.

This marks the first time I can recall that someone has blended Stalinism and right-wing American politics.  (Of course, I encountered revisionist lefties in college, including one true-blue Commie professor - of Soviet History, no less - who claimed that Stalin was a Fascist rather than Communist, so I guess the intellectual underpinnings are there.)

[kishnevi]

This marks the first time I can recall that someone has blended Stalinism and right-wing American politics.  (Of course, I encountered revisionist lefties in college, including one true-blue Commie professor - of Soviet History, no less - who claimed that Stalin was a Fascist rather than Communist, so I guess the intellectual underpinnings are there.)

Well, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics.  If I'm wrong, I hope Velimir or someone else will correct me.

That said, the standard libertarian view of Fascism is that it's really the same thing as Communism, and merely used a different terminology, and allowed a facade of private enterprise that Soviet and Chinese Communism didn't--but the official name of Hitler's movement was, after all, National Socialism.  The only real differences were the overt militarism and jingoistic nationalism (or in the German case, racism) we associate with Fascism but not Communism.

[Todd]

Well, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics.

That may be true, though when I see the term I still automatically think of it in its historical context. 

Despite whatever labels/descriptions one applies, the Commies and Fascists of the last century were basically just bloodthirsty tyrants.  Of course, saying that they are similar will draw the ire of supporters of the far right and left.

[DavidW]

Has anyone tried the guy's pizza? Any good?

Not really.  It just goes to show how an impressive Cain is at business that he can successfully run a franchise that sells semi-disgusting food!

[Todd]

Not really.

As a lover of waxy cheese and excess salt, I take umbrage with your statement, sir!

[karlhenning]

As a lover of waxy cheese and excess salt [...]

There you go: there's a market for anything ; )

[bwv 1080]

On intrade today

Romney - 58%
Perry  - 20%
Cain - 6%
Palin - 5%
Huntsman - 4%
Paul - 2.6%
Bachman - 1.4%

[Daverz]

Of course it doesn't.  Please describe how the debt ceiling situation is equivalent to terrorism.

I think it's pretty obvious how using the threat of making the country default on its debt obligations to extract concessions is akin to terrorism.

It was in the print edition of BusinessWeek.  Maybe they made it up. 

Maybe.  Or maybe you misread it.  Or maybe they had imcomplete information, because a simple google search shows tons of information that clearly contradicts this.

No one, but there's more than a hint in the original post covering this topic that it is something new and specifically Republican in nature, when in fact it has been going on for quite a while. 

I never remember anything on this scale with this many Congress members making credible threats to force the country into default.

Now everyone wants to Bork someone for some reason, and senators are loathe to give up their privileges to block appointments.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. 

BTW, Bork deserved to get "borked".  He was and is a crazy asshole who had no business being on the Supreme Court.

[Todd]

I think it's pretty obvious how using the threat of making the country default on its debt obligations to extract concessions is akin to terrorism.

It's not at all obvious.  Please explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism.  How are they similar?

Or maybe you misread it.

Nope, I didn't misread it.  As to how complete the information was, well I cannot say for certain.  Generally, though, BW uses reliable sources.  You need to dig a little deeper.

[Daverz]

It's not at all obvious.  Please explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism.

There was more than "playing politics" going on here.  There was a credible threat that they would take the country into default and tank the global economy.  Really, you're just being obtuse at this point.

Nope, I didn't misread it.  As to how complete the information was, well I cannot say for certain.  Generally, though, BW uses reliable sources.  You need to dig a little deeper.

The original claim was "yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen."

This is simply not borne out by his own public statements on the issue documented in numerous places, e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090292573339046.html

But you read something in Businessweek that magically negates all these other reckless comments. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Well, it's my underestanding that Stalinism is more or less a right wing (ie, conservative to ultra conservative) position in contemporary Russian politics.  If I'm wrong, I hope Velimir or someone else will correct me.

Calling Stalinism "conservative" is too simplistic in my view. It's really the most extreme iteration of strong-state nationalism, which has been a part of Russian history since Peter the Great. The image of Stalin is nowadays mostly decoupled from communist ideology, which makes things more complicated. "Right-wing"? Maybe, depending on how you define that.

[Todd]

There was more than "playing politics" going on here.  There was a credible threat that they would take the country into default and tank the global economy.  Really, you're just being obtuse at this point.

I notice you failed to explain how playing politics with the debt ceiling is akin to terrorism, which is what you claimed.  I know why.  They are not even close to the same. 

As to what would have happened had the US defaulted in August, well, we cannot know for sure what would have happened, aside from the inevitable lawsuits against the government, but we do know what happened when the US defaulted in 1979.  It was not, in fact, the end of the world.  Rates went up, sure, but the global economy didn't tank.  And that was at a time when the US was even more significant economically.  Now, it's possible to say that the 1979 default was small and that what was at stake in August was huge, but I'd really like to see some numbers to back that up.  Obviously, the US was never at risk of defaulting on its entire debt, but rather on the bills, notes, and bonds due on or shortly after the potential default date.  How much was that Daverz?  Would a default on, say, $50 billion in debt instruments really have caused the global economy to tank?  How about $100 billion?  Where's the threshold?  I'm not talking about short term market gyrations as a sign of economic tanking, mind you, but an impact to real GDP growth in the US and abroad.  I don't think defaulting on sovereign debt is ever a good thing, and it was an unambiguously good thing that it did not occur, but I also don't succumb to alarmist cries that such an event would necessarily be calamitous.  Just like the downgrade of US debt has not yet turned out to be the disaster it was feared to be.  Maybe one day rates will skyrocket as a result.  (I admit I did expect them to go up; bond market players had different ideas.)

As to Mr Cantor's supposedly reckless comments in the link you provided, I see a lot of posturing, and posturing that ultimately coincides with the outline of the debt ceiling agreement that was reached, as well as the article in BW.  I don't see Cantor saying that there would be a default.  Nor do I see him saying he agrees with the White House and would go along with whatever Obama requested.  I see nothing reckless in what he said.  In all of the statements from senior leaders I heard and read from all sources, I never heard anything that I would qualify as reckless.  Let's just take one quote from the article you linked to, shall we:

"It's a serious vote and has serious consequences on both sides of the vote," Mr. Cantor said. "What we need to do and are committed to doing is making sure that we achieve spending cuts and effect real reforms so that the spending binge ends. We look at the debt limit vote as an opportunity for us to accomplish those goals."

Again, I see posturing, pandering to the base, and reiterating goals that Cantor and many Republicans had advocated since at least the beginning of the year.  Where is the recklessness?  Where is the terrorism, or whatever it is that is akin to terrorism? 

[karlhenning]

Krauthammer's dish on the latest debate.

[Todd]

Not-so-slick-Rick is offering up his economic plan today.  It's got that gem of "privatizing" Social Security, one of the worst ideas in the history of the republic (though not for the reasons usually offered).  Will this revive his campaign, or are his formidable hair's days numbered?

[karlhenning]

Oh, well, Governor Perry seems determined to marginalize himself, anyway.