RFK Action Front @ 117

If Senator Obama ONLY wants to raise the social security payroll cap on he should say, “I want to raise the payroll cap.” Period.

Instead, Senator Obama has starting using the “social security is in crisis” meme. The made up “crisis” is a Republican code word — a euphemism for privatization.

My comment pointed out that Senator Obama’s own economic adviser had done a pretty good job of showing the evils of privatization — so it’s strange that Senator Obama is using the Republican code words that evoke privatization in the minds of many voters.

If Obama has categorically ruled out privatization, he’s doing a lousy job of communicating it. Instead, I think he is once again engaged in dog-whistle outreach.

He has specifically rejected privatization. For you to suggest that using the term “crisis” means that he is in favor of privatization or that because he hasn’t screamed it loudly enough is just plain dishonest. I noticed that Bob H (Comment 119) made a comment on privatization apparently following your deliberate misinformation about Obama’s position; i.e. people are relying on bogus claims to make their impression about a candidate. Do you find that acceptable when members of the MSM engage in your tactic?

I think perhaps we’re talking past each other a bit here.

I want to acknowledge your point: Senator Obama has spoken out against privatization. From Senator Obama’s website:

“Barack Obama fought against President Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security. As president, Obama will preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it.”

Also from This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

“OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is — that’s the floor. That’s the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can’t be frayed, and we shouldn’t put at risk.”

I should have included these references in my comments and I think you are correct to point out this omission.

At the same time, if you oppose privatization, don’t you think Senator Obama’s rhetoric on this issue has been strange? By using the crisis meme he is using a Republican code word that evokes privatization. He also says things like “Everything should be on the table.” And strategically he’s put an issue back into play that has already been won in the Democrats favor.

Furthermore, I find Obama’s post partisan, ‘can’t we all just get along’ rhetoric to be dangerously naive. As he showed with the homophobic gospel singer fiasco — Obama’s big tent strategy apparently has room for gays and lesbians and homophobes. To the extent that there is confusion over his position on social security, don’t you think that this confusion has partly been sown by Obama himself in the attempt to show that his big tent has room for both privatizers and those who oppose privatization?

The problem for me is that I can’t tell whether Obama’s use of mixed rhetoric is clever like a fox or another Joe Lieberman in training.

MyDD does a better job of explaining the issues (here).

CheckingIn @ 123

Yeah — call me cynical but Reid’s son is, afterall, on Hillary’s er.. team.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/200…..orgnv.html

Again, I’m just far too cynical… not to expect backroom deals and backhanded maneuvers.

sorry i missed this comment yesterday…

i think this is another case of reid getting unfairly blamed (lord knows there’s plenty he can be fairly blamed for). reid announced the likely hood of the mukasey vote that evening before 10am in the morning (when he gave his morning schedule briefing to the senate floor).

Again, tho’ what was the rush? Not giving Dodd [and others] NOT in the DLC/A*P*C interest faction of the party a chance to spread some of his doubts on Mukasey… Nah! Reid is spineless, and I have a feeling that as a daddy == there may have been just a tiny tiny bit of discussion on his his son’s future political career/… within a certain administration?

CheckingIn @ 124

Thanks for providing the links, however, from the context you have provided — it occurred to me that neither vote was coming up anytime soon?

“There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future.”

What have I missed?

anytime soon here means in the next few hours – ie it won’t be done tonight. it’s clear, i think, from the context that that is the meaning, and if you listen to the c-span video you can hear that the c-span announcer understood it that way too – that the vote wouldn’t occur that evening, but make the next morning.

I watched the video, and I don’t think it clearly concludes the the vote would be followed next day. From my take it appeared the announcer was generically saying that there would be more votes tomorrow referring to the ‘Defence’ bill overall,not specifically referring to a revisit of either the Biden or Kyl-Lieberman amendments vote?

However, I’m wondering what Reid meant when he said “…bring more clearness on the issue…”? So, was there more ‘clearness on the issue’ that night to then justify Reid coming back next day and having the vote called 12:44? — What had ’signficantly’ changed either in front of the camera’s or behind…? The wording of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment still had Webb’s knickers in a twist?

BTW — I’m not an Obama supporter, but I still think the context and timing was a bit fishy…

Thanks for providing the links, however, from the context you have provided — it occurred to me that neither vote was coming up anytime soon?

“There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future.”

What have I missed?

anytime soon here means in the next few hours – ie it won’t be done tonight. it’s clear, i think, from the context that that is the meaning, and if you listen to the c-span video you can hear that the c-span announcer understood it that way too – that the vote wouldn’t occur that evening, but make the next morning.

Joe Buck @ 48

Jane: I’ll bet that CNN’s two sources have endorsed Hillary.

Reid has repeatedly played games with votes like this. He changed the timing of the Mukasey vote so it would be held when all the senators running for president would miss it (a huge embarrassment to Chris Dodd, who’d come out aggressively against Mukasey and “didn’t show up” to vote against him. I was furious, until I found out what Reid had done; it looked like a move to get around Dodd’s hold and preventing a filibuster.

Now, it’s possible that Reid was doing some of the other candidates a favor (Hillary, perhaps) by arranging for them to miss the vote. But there’s a huge difference between missing the vote and voting for K-L.

Yeah — call me cynical but Reid’s son is, afterall, on Hillary’s er.. team.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/200…..orgnv.html

Again, I’m just far too cynical… not to expect backroom deals and backhanded maneuvers.

sorry i missed this comment yesterday…

i think this is another case of reid getting unfairly blamed (lord knows there’s plenty he can be fairly blamed for). reid announced the likely hood of the mukasey vote that evening before 10am in the morning (when he gave his morning schedule briefing to the senate floor).

Embee @ 37

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that. We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator BIDEN will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue. But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight. Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?

…here’s my interpretation of the above – two amendments (one of which was the kyl-lieberman amendment) to the defense authorization bill were expected to be one of two major items (in addition to the break for conferences) on the agenda for the day. the senate managers were not able to come to agreement on the kyl-lieberman amendment (and biden amendment – the two were to be considered together), and so no vote was taken. i read reid’s final statement as saying that there would be no vote that evening – not that there would be no vote the following day… (and this is also what the c-span2 announcer says). indeed, from what i’ve seen so far, the expectation should have been that a vote on the kyl-lieberman amendment was likely the following day, september 26, the day the vote was taken.

…in conclusion, i can find no support for the claim that that senator reid said that the “the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not come up for a vote for several days.” as far as i can tell, the congressional record shows that a vote should have been expected to be likely on september 26.

disclaimer – the above is a quick survey of the events on the sentate floor during september 25 and 26, and by no means thorough or complete – i’d need more time for that. but, at this point, i think the responsibility for evidence lies with people claiming that obama was absent from the kyl-lieberman vote because he did not know that the vote was likely to occur when it did.

Thanks for providing the links, however, from the context you have provided — it occurred to me that neither vote was coming up anytime soon?

“There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future.”

What have I missed?

Jane: I’ll bet that CNN’s two sources have endorsed Hillary.

Reid has repeatedly played games with votes like this. He changed the timing of the Mukasey vote so it would be held when all the senators running for president would miss it (a huge embarrassment to Chris Dodd, who’d come out aggressively against Mukasey and “didn’t show up” to vote against him. I was furious, until I found out what Reid had done; it looked like a move to get around Dodd’s hold and preventing a filibuster.

Now, it’s possible that Reid was doing some of the other candidates a favor (Hillary, perhaps) by arranging for them to miss the vote. But there’s a huge difference between missing the vote and voting for K-L.

Yeah — call me cynical but Reid’s son is, afterall, on Hillary’s er.. team.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/200…..orgnv.html

Again, I’m just far too cynical… not to expect backroom deals and backhanded maneuvers.

Now, English is my second language, but even I can see that hope is what keeps faith alive, and is in no manner audacious. Action, on the other hand, can and should be in some instances audacious. To title a book “The Audacity of Hope”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, immediately raises the question: is anybody home?

The reality is that “social security needs reform” is the mantra for the privatization crowd. Period.

Jonathan Goldberg @ 104

I have now reviewed Digby’s post and I completely stand by my point. Digby assumes that, because Obama supports Social Security reform that he is endorsing Bush’s privatization. The huge management fees would be gained by the banks in the event of privatization not in the event of raising the payroll cap. Again I ask “do you oppose raising that cap?” I believe its been long overdue. Maybe Obama is using some hyperbole about the extent of the Social Security problem. But the key question is “would it be appropriate to raise the cap as a modest measure to thwart a problem that would probably only surface in 40 years or so?” Another way to phrase it is “Is it fair that people making under $97,500 pay a higher rate of their income into the SS system?” To tie him with Bush’s privatization plan when Obama has specifically rejected it is not just incorrect but extremely unfair. It would be like me saying Ted Kennedy is a Bush protege because he worked with him on education issues.

If Senator Obama ONLY wants to raise the social security payroll cap on he should say, “I want to raise the payroll cap.” Period.

Instead, Senator Obama has starting using the “social security is in crisis” meme. The made up “crisis” is a Republican code word — a euphemism for privatization.

My comment pointed out that Senator Obama’s own economic adviser had done a pretty good job of showing the evils of privatization — so it’s strange that Senator Obama is using the Republican code words that evoke privatization in the minds of many voters.

If Obama has categorically ruled out privatization, he’s doing a lousy job of communicating it. Instead, I think he is once again engaged in dog-whistle outreach.

He has specifically rejected privatization. For you to suggest that using the term “crisis” means that he is in favor of privatization or that because he hasn’t screamed it loudly enough is just plain dishonest. I noticed that Bob H (Comment 119) made a comment on privatization apparently following your deliberate misinformation about Obama’s position; i.e. people are relying on bogus claims to make their impression about a candidate. Do you find that acceptable when members of the MSM engage in your tactic?