Dana Perino talks with ‘Intimidation Game’ author Kimberley Strassel
My son ordered a thing from Hillsdale College called "Imprimis" in which they pontificate on different subjects each month. My eye was caught by the April issue "The Left's War on Free Speech". Kimberly Strassel wrote a book called "The Intimidation Game" which details just how all the news crap we see and all the things the Progressives are putting out, are specifically targeted to nullify and negatively impact any truth or reality. It sort of sums up a lot of what is going on and has been going on for years now, going back to when the Supreme Court decided some of the Watergate materials and people needed to be revealed. Her claim is that we have no rights to privacy now and that the government and parties can use any and all information (like taxes and tax laws) tp persecute and prosecute those they are not fond of, culminating in the many abuses, most of which were never resolved or acknowledged, by the last administration.
Ditto BT
I don't get what the left and right are. I get that politicians have constituencies (factions) that want more gov't money for various spending programs and who want laws that favor them.
I think (not sure) the article is saying you can generally sort these special interests into two groups. In this model,you can name any interest group, cab drivers who want laws against unlicensed cabs, tobacco companies that want regulations on e-cigs, police/corrections officers who want a war on people who use drugs; and you can sort that interest group into left/right. I think this model is incorrect. The rent seeking is real. Sorting the special interests into groups who supposedly are at war with one another helps entrench the rent seeking.
The article says "the left" is trying to take free speech away from "the right". I have a FB feed full of articles saying the oppose: the "right" is on a carefully-planned mission to oppose the "left", where I assume "the left" = "good people like you and me, not bad people like them." It's all nonsense, a costume to justify continued gov't spending and intrusiveness.
Here is an example of how whacked out it has gotten:
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/off...
Their Twit head page:
https://twitter.com/ydsusa
Their use of media is much more sophisticated and powerful than most people want to realize, and they took 2016 as a warning that they have to do whatever they need to to rule the peasents.
I do not see a lot of ideology actually being implemented on either side, I see a LOT of corruption disguised as ideology. The IRS scandal, the Justice department BS of 8 years including a completely illegal gun running campaign no one was ever held to account for, and FBI investigation derailed by a DOJ they couldn't even trust, an arrogant assumption Hillary would win "because", and a fearful, horrific backlash because they are panicked at the thought of someone else getting the MONEY. It has nothing to do with us, but she is describing the tools being used by one side against the other. Does the "right" do it? Sure, more quietly maybe, but I am positive I do not want to see the "Left" in charge. I would really want to see a "country" come about, which is still why I am in full support of the Convention of States, as I have yet to see any producers disappearing.
"a closer relaince on their patrons, who you never see or hear from (except maybe George Soros)"
Based on the one book I read by him, Soros is someone I look up to. He obviously may have misrepresented himself; I haven't researched it. I meet a lot of little Soros like me at fundraisers. I don't know what the big-time million-dollar-donor patrons are like.
"Bernie and Hillary both tried to curry favor with "free college", free this, that, and the next thing"
I know. I blame it on Sanders driving Clinton to support these handouts, handouts not just for the poor but most everyone.
"Obamacare debacle gave us 100-200% increases to pay for all the "free healthcare:"
PPACA was far from perfect and not even in the direction I would go, but it's simplistic and wrong to say premiums went up, and consumers got nothing for it. There were a bunch of problems before that have gone away thanks to PPACA. My family's premiums went from $400 to $900 for a comparable policy, mostly due to PPACA. The only debacle-like event is that many people think there is some policy trick to get healthcare services without paying for them.
"They didn't even wait for the votes to be finalized before they called for the Electoral College to ignore their legal and moral responsibilities,"
Who's they? I don't think there was a serious threat to this, and if it happened it would have been a disaster.
"they have had some threaten him with lawsuits, disrespect and that they would derail him at any turn, simply because he was not "Their" candidate."
It's too bad. I don't know how much of it is for show and how much is real, but I agree. Their behavior makes no sense to me. I can get why politicians and media outlets would do it to keep their jobs, but I don't get why average citizens care.
I understand why they'd care if we talking about Gary Johnson, who wanted to try to role back fundamentally the size and intrusiveness of gov't. But I don't get the thing between Clinton and Trump for average citizen. We were running a $400B deficit with Obama plus Republican Congress. Trump proposes increasing that to 1 trillion. He's about the same about worse on gov't intrusiveness. So Clinton has 400 "points" of big gov't intrusiveness in my book, and Trump has 1,000 points. As a citizen I cared enough to vote for Clinton have a hard sign and attend a fundraiser (since I'm going to attend some network events anyway), but I can't see getting worked up. I'm going be sending the same quarterly estimates (Q2 due next week :( ) one way or the other.
"it is about ideology and power,"
I don't see the ideology part, only the power.
"Here is an example of how whacked out it has gotten:
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/off..."
The article itself says it's about a "group of nitwits". I agree. It's like reporting on the random things my 6 y/o says as her brain is growing and forming new pathways, or however it works. This is not something real.
"I do not see a lot of ideology actually being implemented on either side. I see a LOT of corruption disguised as ideology."
Yes, exactly. I hardly see sides, just people fired up about stupid stuff and accepting that we pay a third of our money in taxes forever.
"Does the "right" do it? "
Remember, I don't really believe in a "right" and "left", at least in terms of something clearly defined and not in terms of something the average person cares about.
"I am in full support of the Convention of States"
I am open to it and in full support if it really could return power and money to the states. I am very unclear why a Convention of the States would work, since we have a Constitution already, and we don't fully respect its limitations. And if it would work, I wonder if it could be done by Amendment. Despite my general cautiousness, I'm open to the idea because I feel like we're a bloated decaying empire and we need to do something.
"My family's premiums went from $400 to $900 for a comparable policy, mostly due to PPACA. The only debacle-like event is that many people think there is some policy trick to get healthcare services without paying for them."
There is the problem, you can pay for it in many ways, the "PPACA" decided to require that a whole host of services be provided by dictate, and so that cost has been added to everyone, whether they need it, want it, or not. I don't think I need birth control, but I pay for it. My employer even tells me they pay 11K a year fro me to have a policy that I pay the first 3600 on, and they are self insured. Since a lot (my guess is 90%) of people never exceed 3600 a year in costs (as the plan pays for preventative stuff which is what most people use routinely) I have to assume that is the average spent per person by the company per year. I find such bookkeeping disingenuous at best and reflective of the system as a whole.
"I am very unclear why a Convention of the States would work, since we have a Constitution already, and we don't fully respect its limitations."
The Convention of States is the ONLY option left, since the 2 controlling parties no longer represent their constituents. Main items being floated are balanced budget, term limits and a few changes to cover elections and immigration. It is true that we have a SCOTUS that has beome as responsive and honest as the parties, and it could just "reinterpret" the new additions ( I could just see that they say term limits are not applicable when you go from house to senate and back, so we end up with 300 Putins) but such a debacle would lead to a revolution I think.
I do see the Ideology and Power as being tied together because their patrons drive what they do by feeding them money when they deliver what is required, so they produce garbage based on the patrons ideology with their power in government.
Right and left are arbitrary terms needed to distinguish between Clinton and Ryan. Other than their supposed political philosophy, they are all one happy, corrupt gang screwing all of us.
I understand your supporting Clintons side, if it matches your observations and beliefs, however, I cannot say I support ANY side at this point, they are equally bad. Trump, I think, had a real idea he could clean up the mess, got there, and was told he would be ridden out on rails if he did not stick to the Republican system, and do what he was told. I think they used their first health care vote to prove it, which is why he looked so incredibly stupid. I also think he is now just the class clown,, a distraction, there to keep the seat warm until 2020. But I also think we will see Democrats in control of everything then, holding all three, and we will have another 8 year Obama run, which we will not survive.
Yes. That's part of the increased cost. The other part is "insuring" people who are already sick. That makes it not really insurance, but it's intended to be a fix for the previous system. Responsible people were supposed to buy insurance before they got sick or have enough wealth to pay for their medical care. If they got sick w/o insurance or wealth, they would turn up at providers who would treat them and find a way to pass the costs on to others. PPACA admitted that aloud and tried to make everyone pay for his own care. It also allows people who are sick and have insurance to switch jobs or start a business easy without worrying about health insurance. I think that part of it is good.
"Main items being floated are balanced budget"
That is probably the most important thing.
"I do see the Ideology and Power as being tied together because their patrons drive what they do by feeding them money when they deliver what is required"
I don't call that "ideology", but it's just a question of naming it. People pay a third of what they earn into the gov't. It's hopeless to lobby the gov't to cut that in half. But it's not hopeless to get some back by working with politicians to recommend grant recipients spend some of their grant money on the business doing the lobbying. So there's a constant pressure to increase spending, but not a balancing pressure to cut spending. It's easier to lobby to get a tiny fraction of the gov't spending pie than it is to get them to shrink the pie.
"they are all one happy, corrupt gang screwing all of us."
I understand the idea, but I don't blame them. If they wanted to be righteous and promote limited gov't, ignore lobbying for more spending, dismiss demagoguery, and so on, they would not have a job in elected office.
"I understand your supporting Clintons side, if it matches your observations and beliefs"
I wouldn't go that far. I think she would be way way better at managing the current system, which I have problems with. She would have been the best at holding things together and keeping things stable in a gov't that looks nothing like what the Founders created.
"I think they used their first health care vote to prove it, which is why he looked so incredibly stupid."
I don't follow this. Why did he look stupid?
"I also think he is now just the class clown,, a distraction, there to keep the seat warm until 2020."
Are you saying someone has a master plan for him? I don't think so. A combination of weak Democratic candidate (Clinton), a real desire to change the way gov't works, and an Electoral College designed for a world when North and South had different interests resulted in a clown being elected president. I don't think it was planned. Next time it could be a Bernie Sanders-like figure, which would be possible worse in some ways. I don't think there's a plan.
I just cannot see how either party can fit in a business persons needs today, they are both focused on milking the system that you just have to become another patron.
However, much as people would like to think we were the land of the brave and the free from the getgo, we have been conniving to get what we want (as groups), I just listened to Teddy Roosevelt's "History of the Navy in the War of 1812" and he discusses some of the reasons hey were so woefully unprepared, which included Jefferson's low tax, small government philosophy, which led to a military made up of militia (poorly trained and equipped) and a very small navy (7 frigates, about 20 smaller ships and about 100-200 gunboats with 1 or 2 cannon). That staging set the way for how the entire war was fought and turned out. But it ended up working out for us. There have been factions, favors and patrons since almost day one, and business has been in their helping or hindering the current party based on business needs. My whole preference is a government of small size, able to protect the country, with little regulation and laws, and just let it run. See what happens.
Yes. It gave me an odd comfort in the way you describe that the nasty side of politics in gov't is nothing new.