Astrocloud

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/002336.html

Where Are the Grownups in the Republican Party?
At last night's very pleasant event, where a substantial chunk of Berkeley economics faculty (plus one sociologist) took Robin Wells and Paul Krugman out to dinner, one of the main topics of conversation was: "Where are the grownups in the Republican Party?"

And where are they? Where are the grownups? Where are even the semi-grownups?

On the economic policy side, Marty Feldstein and Mike Boskin and company did not campaign for Bush thinking they were electing a guy who would blow open the federal budget and send our domestic politics on a trajectory that--unless reversed--will indeed land us in the neighborhood of Argentina. "It's amazing what they've done," says one senior Federal Reserve official. "It's like being up 8 runs at the start of the ninth inning, and then down 12 halfway through the ninth." Larry Lindsey and John Taylor did not join the federal government to impose tariffs on steel imports and blow up the Doha Round of the WTO. Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard did not join the administration to stammer that there was a plan to reduce the budget deficit by half (even though nobody can say what it is without evoking laughter). Yet they are all very silent: hardly a peep, and certainly not a resignation on principle.

On the security side, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft did try to draw a line in the sand in favor of the containment rather than the invasion of Iraq. They did not think that they had campaigned for an administration that would tie down our combat brigades--the most modern, powerful, and mechanized combat brigades ever seen--as military police in the Iraqi desert, and in the process strain our powerful, useful, and just alliances with Europe to the breaking point. But their line in the sand was weakly drawn. And since last winter they too have fallen awfully silent.

Assistant Secretaries of State, Directors at the National Security Council, fellow-traveling outside ideologues--they did not sign up for an administration in which not one but two senior White House officials (with the approval and knowledge of God knows how many others in George W. Bush's inner circle) would dial reporter after reporter (in the end, six reporters) trying to find somebody who would help them blow the cover of covert American intelligence officers. Yet they too are awfully silent.

The only theory peddled around the dinner table that made even one quarter sense is that all the Republican grownup insiders fear loss of White House mess privileges and cherish the illusion that by quietly working on the inside they keep things from being much worse, and all the Republican grownup outsiders fear that putting themselves in opposition to the administration will mean that a number of phone calls will be made to K-Street lobbyists and right-wing foundations and that they will find their incomes in a free fall. But that only makes a quarter-sense--not even half-sense. First, the older ones have nothing to fear from the administration's retaliation: they have long since made their f*** you money. Second, such people are always much more into the influence than the big-pile-of-consumption-goods game, and to be a tireless advocate for this administration's economic or security policy seems to be a good way to blow your reputation and credibility for life.

Where are the grownups of the Republican Party?

HarmlessRabbit

What do you think about this article, AstroCloud? Do you agree, disagree, know the author, hate the author?

You don't get my opinion until you give yours.

Astrocloud

First of all:

Why target my opinion solely? There are more people than just me reading this. So speak up i.e. quit playing games.

Secondly:

Who would post an article critical of the republican (mis) management of the government? Notice that in the title of the article I specifically mention the economy. So it seems that my opinion is also pretty obvious.

I'll chime in -if and when somebody says something interesting. So far... "you don't say much" -isn't very interesting.

Phaenx

Partisan attacks are what makes a grownup? Boy, there are some people who shouldn't get involved with politics, and indeed they are the disrespectful people who point fingers at their counter-parts and spew insults rather then offer solutions to fix the problem (there is no problem in my opinion, but we're talking about this fellow).

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Kadath

You now look like an ass. There has been a big push recently for people not to just post articles. That is not a contribution. Thus, you are targeted. As for your opinion being obvious, well, allowing people to assume they know how you think is a) lazy b) dangerous c) ignorant.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Astrocloud

Good because I'm wearing my assless chaps.

And strange... because when I posted my poll on movies

Clockwork Orange Vs. Fight Club

-I never said anything on where I stand....



And judging by some of the posts on this board -I'm guessing you people can't comment on anything where you can't just attack the messenger.

HarmlessRabbit

No it's not. You could have posted that article because you disagreed with it. And now you've already replied once without giving your opinion yet. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Quote:

I'll chime in -if and when somebody says something interesting.

Ditto.

Kadath

Now you've launched a broad attack on the whole board. See that paint around the corner you're in? You put it there.

For a start, you could just voice your opinion. I think CO vs FC is an important discussion, to be sure, but maybe not on the same level.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Astrocloud

Okay I'll state an opinion. I title this opinion:

You can't lower interest rates forever.


Looking at the above article I see that it mentions a few names of right wing economists who disagree with the current administration's handling of the whole affair. These are most certainly what one would call "White House Insiders". Let's take one name in particular and analyze his critique.


Marty Feldstein certainly has excellent credentials. But what is his party affiliation? Well gee if you look here then you'll read that he was CEA chairman during Reagan's reign (-actually first term ). Even still, Marty has his detractors.

So what exactly is Marty's argument against Bushonomics?
Does it have any thing to do with this?





I'm not sure. If you read this paper you will get juicy tidbits like:

Gee, considering the article was a plea for a worthwhile economic stimulus; I'd say the the economy is in trouble. Of course it's for the hard core idealogues to accept this. After all, they're still waiting for the tax cuts to kick in.

Astrocloud

Interesting perspective... tell me do you have any sense of irony when you tell me that? (I believe I was complaining that people were attacking the messenger) -there is irony there somewhere about repeatedly refering to the poster, rather than the post.

And for the record two things:

1) When I referred to "this board" I was referring to the politics board, not everyone on tf.

2) What do you mean by "CO vs FC"? Please explain.

Kadath

Just so I can make my stance known (as if most old hands here didn't know it already) the Republican government is putting the big hurt on our economy. I am not attacking you for your opinion, but the fact that you didn't express it explicitly.
My statement wasn't really ironic, but I do have a decently-honed sense of irony, thank you.
I was aware you meant "this board." However, "this board" is a subset of the TFP, and you're not wise to attack a whole group based on the responses of a few regardless of how large the group is.
CO vs FC. Clockwork Orange vs Fight Club. The example you listed suggesting it was okay to not voice an opinion. My implication was that maybe a debate about which movie is better is not really on par with the national economy. Honestly, I don't care which of those movies comes out on top; I like them both, but being of the younger generation, FC appeals to me more. I do care if the US economy continues to shit the bed.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Astrocloud

Uh gee, thanks. I notice there's still no meat here. Nobody has even touched the post yet. The closest we have so far is:

Where actually there are lots of suggestions "to fix the problem". Note that these "disrespectful people" are economics PhD's and many are "insiders".


Of course, the President of the National Bureau of Economic Research disagrees with you. I suppose he doesn't know what he's talking about.

phukraut

asking ppl to assume what your opinion is is sure to backfire on you later.. i think someone said that already above, but it's worth repeating!

Astrocloud

That's pretty irrelevant. The point of the post isn't what I think or about me... It's an article criticizing the current administration's economic policies. I'm interested in our opinions on that -aren't you????

phukraut

yeah you are right, i should've put it in a PM instead, i apologize.

ctembreull

Ok, for the record, then.

I found it highly amusing back during the campaign of 2000 when George W. Bush claimed that his victory would put the grownups back in charge of the White House. After all, this is a man who was born into wealth and privilege. He was admitted to Yale on his father's merits, not his own. He did not distinguish himself there; later accounts indicate that his specialties were beer and cheerleading. After college, a friend of his father's got him out of the draft and into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of many other and more qualified candidates (Bush scored a 25 on his aptitude test, the lowest possible non-failing score). He left the T-ANG before his discharge, making him officially AWOL. He was never prosecuted. He went into business in a series of failed oil ventures; each was either bought out by wealthy and well-connected friends of the family. Bush always received a golden parachute from these failed ventures. He then purchased a minority interest in the Texas Rangers - and used his family's political connections to get the land upon which The Ballpark at Arlington now stands out of the hands of its rightful owners. The franchise did well, and Bush left the team for politics with much more money than he had when he started.

This is not a grownup, ladies and gentlemen. This is a spoiled, wayward child who just happens to have his finger on the Nuclear Button. As far as the real grownups in the Republican Party (I presume there are at least a few), they're either not willing or not able to exercise any sort of control or restraint upon their Commander in Chief.

Which means, IMHO, it's up to us Democrats to do it for them.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!