Welcome to this week’s edition of The Daily Banter Mailbag! Today, Bob, Ben and Chez discuss the Fiscal Cliff Deal, Current TV sold to Al Jazeera, and the NRA is really pissed off.

The questions:

1) Neither political party is happy with the deal that was cut regarding the media-riffic misnomer known as the “fiscal cliff.” The fact of the matter is that the GOP pretty much got what it demanded in the form of spending cuts to programs like Obamacare. That’s just reality, and that they continue to tantrum is irrelevant. What’s the point of Obamacare if it’s piecemeal repealed via crappy legislative bargaining like this? Did not the President just win re-election? And this isn’t “liberal angst” you’re hearing. It’s coming from a 2008/2012 Obama supporter that’s demanding better.
–Robert

Chez: To be honest, I’m just going to open up my bag of Jiffy-Pop, sit back, put my feet up and watch Bob respond to this. Bob?

Bob: Huh? The premise of your entire question simply isn’t accurate. Democrats are quite happy with the deal, including me. Furthermore, there aren’t any cuts to Obamacare in the deal. None. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but it’s strange that your biggest gripe with the deal is something that didn’t happen. The ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts was 41-to-1 — that’s a huge victory for Democrats.

Ben: Hi Robert, the whole fiscal cliff debacle was horrendous to watch, and I’d imagine even more horrendous to negotiate. It seems to me there’s good evidence Obama played everything brilliantly up until the very last moment and appears to have lost his nerve when negotiations fell apart under Harry Reid and he moved the goal posts again by sending Joe Biden in to concede even more. The thing is, you have to remember that it is literally impossible to deal sensibly with the Republicans – they have shown a willingness to hold the country to ransom over and over again for the sake of ideological purity, and there’s not much Obama can do to stop them. Had the deal fallen through, the economy would have taken a hit and lots of people would have been affected by the cuts to welfare programs. That’s the reality of it and regardless of how angry liberals gets, they aren’t the ones dealing with Boehner and the lunatic Tea Party that controls much of the GOP. Sure the outcome wasn’t the best for Obama, but he got the biggest tax hike in recent history passed without throwing the economy off a cliff, and he also managed to preserve social programs for the poor that Republicans would nuke in a split second given half a chance.

2) What are your thoughts on Al Gore selling Current TV to Al Jezeera?
– Anon

Bob: Considering how he and his investors were unwilling to spend the money on allowing the programming to find an audience — not to mention allowing the audience to find the program via more cable markets — it’s not surprising that they’d bail this quickly. Meanwhile, it’s encouraging that it was sold to Al Jazeera, which is an excellent TV news source. Too bad no one will see it because it’s so deeply buried on the digital cable dial.

Ben: If Gore and Hyatt had sold Current because it was losing money I could understand abandoning their mission to build an independent network so quickly. But as I understand it, Current was actually making money, so I don’t have a huge amount of respect for the move especially given both are not going to be involved with it going forward. Arianna Huffington stayed on at the Huff Post after selling to AOL and has had a huge role in expanding the site and building new and interesting elements like the ‘Huff Post Live’. Gore and Hyatt are just taking the money and running.

Chez: I’ve written quite a bit about this over the past week or so. I have friends who work at Current and even though I don’t I feel the same way about it that they do, namely that Gore sold out for a big payday and left a lot of little people utterly screwed. Gore paid a lot of lip service to building a truly independent journalistic organization from the ground up but when the richest country in the world offered to dump a giant truckload of money in his lap, all that integrity crap went right out the window. And lest anyone think that he was backed into a financial corner, Current was in fact turning a pretty decent prophet — yet he and Joel Hyatt took the money and ran anyway. I have nothing against Al Jazeera; it’s a fine news organization. But to have it thrive at the demise of Current is unfortunate.

3) The NRA is already making it clear they won’t accept any of the vice president’s gun control recommendations. Will any good come from the White House’s push for sensible gun control?
– Kris

Chez: The beautiful thing about the NRA opposing ANY kind of sensible gun control is that it takes the group’s opinion off the table. Why bother trying to make clowns like Wayne LaPierre and happy when they’ve made it clear they’ll never be — unless of course the subject of gun control were dropped altogether. The White House should proceed as if the NRA power structure is a non-entity and simply do what needs to be done.

Bob: I don’t think the White House cares what the NRA has to say. Biden and the president knows it’s time to act, with or without the support of the gun lobby. And that’s extraordinarily refreshing.

Ben: I’ll be watching what the White House does over gun control with great interest. Gun control is an issue that demands immediate action and it isn’t clear whether the Obama administration has the stomach to do what is necessary to get assault rifles off the streets. The NRA will oppose any form of gun control regardless of what happens, so there’s absolutely no point in dealing with them. Obama should completely ignore what they have to say and spend a lot of time making sure the debate happens on his terms. This means consistently reminding people about the horrors of Sandy Hook elementary school and ensure he brings people from different sides of the political spectrum to build consensus on the issue. I won’t pass judgment yet, but I’m hoping (perhaps foolishly) for the best.

—–

Got a question for the mailbag? Email us at TheDailyBanter@gmail.com!!!

Subscribe

's feed

Enter email below:

For several weeks following Election Day, the Republican Party decided it was time to evolve (irony intended) and to reach out to various demographic groups as a means of reinvigorating the future of the party.

As we’ve discussed, the Republicans have become increasingly regionalized and monochromatic, with dwindling support among women and nearly zero support among minorities. Beyond that, their messaging on issues like gun control is increasingly archaic and voters are generally fed up with their continued economic sabotage and brinksmanship on the economy — the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling and so on.

So, naturally, a Republican Outreach Effort (previous posts here and here) was engaged as a means for the party to repair its image before it’s too late and it goes the way of the Whigs. However, the tea party base and the conservative entertainment complex, as David Frum calls it, will never allow the party to soften its posture on core positions like reproductive rights, immigration and the social safety net. 30 years of bumper sticker marketing and simplistic, kneejerk, opposite-day nonsense has become embedded in the party’s overly-mutated, inbred gene pool.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, and perhaps good for the rest of us, the outreach effort isn’t going very well. In fact, I would suggest it’s basically over. And many of us knew that would be the case the second they began to talk about it.

Prepare to get your schadenfreude on — here’s how badly it’s going.

More Brinksmanship. The Republicans allowed us to temporarily careen over the fiscal cliff by delaying a vote in the House on the final deal in by nearly one full day, and now they’re continuing to flirt with the ridiculous idea of not passing an increase in the debt ceiling. It’s 2011 all over again, and definitely not a positive move towards more adult behavior, as if that would ever happen with this crew. Strike that — it’s actually the middle 1990s again, with Republicans threatening another government shutdown even though it worked out horribly for them the first time around (President Clinton was re-elected and Newt Gingrich’s speakership began to fall apart). Ironically, it’s Newt Gingrich who’s pitching the idea this time around. Come to think of it, Gingrich was suggesting the same thing in 2011. If I was the president, I would dare the Republicans to listen to Gingrich this time. Then, as soon as a pile of Republicans came out in support of it, I’d invoke the 14th Amendment and raise the debt ceiling without them.

Latino Outreach. Chairman of the Republican Crazy Caucus, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), introduced his first unconstitutional bill of the new Congress. Specifically, it’s a law that cuts to the heart of the 14th Amendment — this time the birthright citizenship clause. King’s bill strips citizenship away from children of undocumented immigrants, so called “anchor babies” — children born inside the United States. Not only will this further anger Latino voters, but it also emphasizes how the Republicans simply aren’t interested in protecting children after they’ve been successfully birthed. King has 13 Republican co-sponsors. You know, because of the outreach effort.

Reproductive Rights. In addition to passing new and increasingly radical laws against women at the state legislative level, Ann Coulter proposed an idea that probably won’t help to rally other women around the far-right Republican cause. On Sean Hannity’s show last week, and during a discussion about gun control, Coulter proposed that the government make a list of all women who’ve had abortions. Yes, that’s right, during one of the most difficult ordeals of a woman’s life why not force her to become a humiliating and dangerous public target for threats, assault and domestic terrorism by putting her name on a government list. And if you think Coulter’s just a lone nut seeking attention, Texas just moved another step closer to this idea. By the way, Coulter also accused women of using Medicare to get abortions — you know, all those pregnant 65-year-olds getting abortions. (Never mind the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal money for abortions.) Oh, and good job allowing the Violence Against Women Act expire, Republicans. Smart.

Gun Control. In spite of Joe Scarborough’s passionate case for reversing the Repulblican posture on gun control, the party has not only resisted proposals for new laws banning assault weapons, but Republicans across the country have proposed arming school officials: teachers, principals and other staffers, thus turning schools into war-zones — an escalating arms race, with children in the crossfire. Meanwhile, Senators Lindsey Graham and John Barrasso more or less pledged to vote against another assault rifle ban.

While Republicans are definitely weakened and appear to be self-destructing, they’re still capable of making sure all of these things get passed. You can call it death rattle or a last desperate move to cling to their Uncle-Rico-from-Napoleon-Dynamite quest for time travel — in this case, to return to their long, lost white, Christian 1950s Utopia. But they continue to carry enough weight, enough numbers and enough crazy-strength to seriously foul up the works.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Welcome to this week’s edition of The Daily Banter Mailbag! Today, Bob, Ben and Chez discuss John Boehner’s political future, the tone-deaf Republicans and resolutions for 2013!

The questions:

1) I hope this one gets in in time to make the mailbag, but how the fuck did Boehner manage to hang onto his job??? Just yesterday Chris Christie was tearing him a new one in front of the whole country and today he’s reelected Speaker of the House. What gives?
– Sophia

Chez: I’m honestly a little surprised Boehner didn’t get ousted. Yeah, there’s a tendency, even among the insurgents, not to make too many waves considering what they’re up against at the moment, but Boehner really did get the shit kicked out of him yesterday. The only thing I can think of is that there are enough “moderate” — a term I use relatively — House Republicans who figure Boehner’s the best reptilian politician to sit at the head of the table and that appointing a true nut-job would basically be suicide. Honestly, who knows why those idiots do what they do anymore?

Bob: I hope he savors it because two years from now he’ll only be Speaker of His Barstool from the Great State of Merlot at “P.J. O’Filibusters” bar & grille on Capitol Hill. He’ll either be replaced by Eric Cantor or preferably a Democrat if they can take back the House. As for the vote yesterday, I thought for sure he’d be out.

Ben: How did Boehner manage to hold on to his job? How do any major Republicans hold on to any of their positions? There’s no use applying logical thinking to what the Republicans do – they’re batshit crazy, and the less brain cells they display, the higher up they get in the party. I mean, this is a party that thought Sarah Palin was seriously capable of being Vice President of the United States. Boehner is a complete joke, therefore he keeps his job.

2) What proves most from this week that the right hasn’t learned anything since the election and will never change, the fiscal cliff fiasco, the Sandy aid bill debacle, or the conspiracies about Hillary Clinton faking her brain injury so she doesn’t have to testify about Benghazi? Inquiring minds want to know.
– Travis

Bob: Probably the Sandy aid bill, but I’m sure they’ll pass it today. However, they allowed the Violence Against Women Act expire and I’d say that’s the most tone-deaf thing the congressional Republicans have done since the election. They need more women to vote for them and so they do… this? They’re simply incapable of changing.

Ben: Er, all of the above? I know it’s pretty scary to watch, but it’s doing wonders for the Democrats. The more of this insanity, the better as Obama is learning how to play them like a fiddle. They’ve lost the public, and the Democrats are finally making this pay off legislatively speaking (the fiscal cliff being a pretty good example).

Chez: This is a trick question, right? The answer is all of them? I think that both the fiscal cliff and the Sandy incident that drew the wrath of Christie proved that the conservative power structure will continue to be political and economic nihilists, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it’s hurting them. But yeah, Fox News and its ilk throwing out Clinton-as-the-Devil-era conspiracy theories — ones that of course involve Benghazi — is probably the most absurdly damning. It proves that they’re not only not going to get better — they’re apparently going to get much worse. I’m both curious and terrified to see what the bottom looks like for these people.

3) What are your biggest resolutions for 2013?
–KV

Chez: To stop being so obvious.

Bob: I have to get back on my bike. I haven’t even looked at it since before the election. But it’s going to really, really hurt.

Ben: Bit of a boring response here, but my life pretty much revolves around The Daily Banter. So my resolution (like last year) is to make it much, much better. Oh, and to stop breaking bones in my body as I seem to get at least two major injuries per year.

—– -

Got a question for the mailbag? Email us at TheDailyBanter@gmail.com!!!

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

For the first part of New Year’s Day, I thought the far-left “Obama caved” crowd would take the prize for the most insane political faction of the day considering how, as soon as a deal was reached, they accused the president of capitulating to the Republicans, even though the deal was quite good given the alternatives. But then the House Republicans stepped onto the stage and posed a serious challenge to the insanity on the far-left by engaging in further sabotage and brinksmanship before finally voting to pass the deal.

So no, the “Obama caved” left wasn’t responsible for the only infuriating responses to the deal, but they were infuriating nevertheless because, after all, liberals are supposed to be the smart, rational ones. Sadly, that wasn’t the case. Again.

As soon as the deal was announced on New Year’s Eve, the far-left kneejerked into its predictable boilerplate apoplexy: calling for the president’s head with the scripted refrains of “He betrayed the left! IEEEEEE!” even though the fiscal cliff deal is mostly composed of a 4.6 percent tax hike on the top tax bracket returning it to the Clinton-era level, along with an extension of unemployment benefits for long-term jobless Americans, and $15 billion in spending cuts. $600 billion in revenue versus $15 billion in cuts. By the way, the $30 billion in unemployment benefits will result in $48.6 billion in economic growth, per Moody’s calculations. Good news and a good investment in the economy.

In addition, the payroll tax holiday will expire, and the estate tax will increase to 40 percent from the Bush-era 35 percent. This, evidently, is the president “caving” to the Republicans — the reversal of 20 years of Republican tax policy. The party that pledged to never raise taxes voted for a nearly 5 percent tax hike on the rich, while extending an import section of the social safety net for another year.

Now, I have a sense of what some on the left would’ve preferred, but, as usual, what the left wants and what’s politically achievable are often two different things, considering the intransigent congressional Republicans. It’s clear the Republicans would never have voted for the ideal liberal package. They came closer than ever before, but they’ll never break the zero barrier. Not these Republicans. They wanted Social Security and Medicare cuts. They wanted to renew all of the Bush tax cuts. They wanted severe spending cuts to everything except defense. Instead, the Republicans voted for practically no cuts at all, and a tax hike on earners who George W. Bush famously referred to as his “base.” $41 in revenue for every $1 in spending cuts. That’s exceptional.

Given the contentious eleventh-hour outcome, it’s safe to assume the Republicans wouldn’t accept any further demands, and we can assume that if the president had held out for the most liberal version of a deal, there wouldn’t have been a deal at all. Consequently we’d risk a recession; a Wall Street sell-off today; the loss of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans; and a 50% tax hike on the lowest bracket — workers earning $0-$8,700 per year. For reasonable liberals, this is totally unacceptable. Coincidentally this is exactly what the House Republicans were willing to risk. Once again, as with the Affordable Care Act, the characters farthest to the left have somehow met up with the characters farthest to the right. I joked on Twitter that perhaps the usual liberal suspects would revive the effort to team up with Grover Norquist to kill the bill.

Throughout the day, the same phrase popped up: the president continuously moved his “line in the sand.” Paul Krugman, who I generally admire, wrote, “He kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position.”

Two things about this. First, drawing a line in the sand is a negotiation tactic and not the ultimate expectation for a deal. Unless you’re a dictator. Negotiators draw a line in the sand in order to get their enemies as close to their position as possible, though obviously the Republicans, and especially the House variety, would never agree to everything the president or the left were demanding on that side of the line. Never. Second, Krugman also admitted that the president basically won the negotiation with many of the things he wanted. In response, John Aravosis wrote:

We got what you wanted, but you [Krugman] still feel we lost because you don’t like the way the President got what we wanted. What was wrong with the President’s approach, I ask? He caved on his promises, you say. But if the President caved on his promises, then how did we end up with what you wanted?

Negotiations are fluid affairs: chess-matches with fake-outs, gambits and uncertainty. If the president had drawn a line in the sand, the only thing left at the end would’ve been a really, really principled line in the sand. Everything else would’ve disintegrated.

This is one of the reasons why I strongly believe there are those on the left who would’ve screeched the same “Obama caved” gripe no matter what. Why? Peer-pressure and liberal cred. Because if they were to ever full-throatedly praise an Obama accomplishment, other liberals would shout them down as Obama-apologists and capitulators. Resistance is futile, and so forth. Admittedly, though, if the deal had included chained CPI on Social Security or cuts to Medicare, or an across-the-board renewal of the Bush tax cuts I probably would’ve lined up against the deal. But it turned out to be a far better result than I thought, and I honestly don’t care how the president got there at this point.

In the real world where there are real people coping with real problems, a deal was mandatory, as was a few concessions to the Republicans since they happen to control the House and nearly half of the Senate. If there was a whip count for everything the “Obama caved” liberals wanted, I’m happy to hear about it, but I don’t think it existed. It’s fine to try to push the president towards your personal legislative priorities, and the elimination of the chained CPI idea is probably a result of that effort, but liberal advocacy and activism shouldn’t include risking damage to the incomes and lives of the people who liberals are otherwise trying to help. That’s the same kind of sabotage and hostage-taking used by the congressional Republicans, and I don’t want any part of it.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

U.S. Marines leaving a compound at night in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. (Defense Department photo)

By Coleen Rowley:

As the final scene of Thelma and Louise seems to be playing out these last few days, it might be a good time to recall the dramatic end of that movie. It’s true that some think the fiscal cliff is real while others say it’s just a mirage.

Some in theU.S.want to just “keep goin’” as Thelma urges. But most of us probably don’t see much of a choice — it seems more like we are trapped in a car with its gas pedal stuck in the full speed ahead mode and someone has disabled the brakes. For even at this 11th hour, almost no one in the Punch and Judy Show inWashingtonis able to home in on, much less intelligently discuss, the real problem.

However, as President Obama urges a last-ditch budget deal, one clarion voice, that of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, was heard on Democracy Now . Here are some of Kucinich’s parting words of wisdom about the phoniness of the entire fiscal cliff debate, ignoring as it does the terrible elephant in the room, the war machine:

“So, you know, this is — we really have to decide who we are as a nation. We’re spending more and more money for wars. We’re spending more and more money for interventions abroad. We’re spending more and more money for military buildups. And we seem to be prepared to spend less and less on domestic programs and on job creation.

“This whole idea of a debt-based economic system is linked to a war machine. … We’re increasingly dysfunctional as a nation because of our unwillingness to challenge the military-industrial complex, which Dwight Eisenhower warned about generations ago. And so, we really have to look atAmerica’s role in the world. We have a right to defend ourselves, but we have no right to aggress. And we’re continuing to aggress.

“And that’s coming at a cost to our domestic priorities here, this idea of guns and butter. We are now thoroughly mired in an economy that’s based on guns. We are not providing for the practical needs of the American people. And this budget — and this fiscal cliff — does in no way get into that debate.”

Also amidst the darkness comes a news flash of a way by which ordinary people can still make a difference: “DULUTH CITY COUNCIL JOINS SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS PASSING THE MN ASAP RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PENTAGON SPENDING REDUCTIONS: the MN ASAP resolution connects the dots between federal military spending, cuts to city council budgets, and the debate about sequestration and the fiscal cliff.”

As part of the Minnesota Arms Spending Alternatives Project (MN ASAP), citizens in Minnesota have effectively begun pointing to U.S. war machine spending as the elephant in the room that needs to be noticed, then discussed and addressed. We have found that our city councilpersons and mayors, on the whole, seem more clear-headed, more approachable, less corrupted by the Military Industrial Complex and less defensive than the federal characters responsible for getting us into the costly wars and fiscal mess.

As a result, on Dec. 17, the Duluth City Council passed the resolution, calling on Congress for a reduction and redirection of Pentagon spending back to local communities. [Click here for TV news coverage.]

The resolution initiative is getting real traction not only in Minnesotabut around the country. The Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed a similar resolution, Oct. 10. And the Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed a similar version of the MN ASAP resolution on Dec. 7. (Just a few days before, Des Moines, Iowa joined a growing group of larger U.S. cities that have passed or are passing similar resolutions.)

We have to start somewhere and everyone can do this. For instance on Dec. 13, I requested, for the second time, that the MN ASAP resolution be put on (my own) Apple Valley City Council’s agenda warning that the wars are bankrupting America and that the “fiscal cliff” is unlikely to go away as long as the U.S. continues to spend more on the Pentagon, its wars abroad and its military occupations, than on programs of social uplift. I intend to keep knocking on my city’s door until they wake up and open it and put this discussion on their official agenda.

Guns or butter is, of course, the real issue. It’s unfortunate, all these decades after Eisenhower’s warning about the pernicious, corrupting influence of the Military Industrial Complex, that we cannot count on those in Washington to heed the dangers. In fact, their plan seems to raise taxes on everyone to pay for more wars.

More citizens and grassroots efforts like the successful actions of MN ASAP and the National Priorities Project are therefore necessary. People who care about their children and grandchildren’s future need to replicate these types of presentations in cities and state legislatures all over the country if we are ever to end the unethical, illegal wars and get our priorities back in order.

And if we citizens choose to do nothing but go along? Note that the old movie mercifully spared its audience of watching crazy Thelma and Louise hit rock bottom. Rest assured, however, that in real life,Washington’s collective euphoria and currently prevalent belief that war is the answer will undoubtedly come to a very sad crashing end.

Coleen Rowley is a retired FBI agent and former chief division counsel in Minneapolis. She’s now a dedicated peace and justice activist and board member of the Women Against Military Madness. [This article was originally posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/only-one-good-way-to-brak_b_2384964.html]

(Originally posted at Consortium News)

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

The Daily Banter Headline Grab. From The New York Times:

Congress approved a plan to end Washington’s long drama over the “fiscal cliff” late Tuesday after House Republicans surrendered to President Obama’s demand to let taxes rise on the nation’s richest households.

The House voted 257 to 167 to send the measure to Obama for his signature; the vote came less than 24 hours after the Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and most other top GOP leaders took no public position on the measure and offered no public comment before the 10:45 p.m. vote. Boehner declined even to deliver his usual closing argument, leaving House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) to defend the measure as the “largest tax cut in American history.”

The bill will indeed shield millions of middle-class taxpayers from tax increases set to take effect this month. But it also will let rates rise on wages and investment profits for households pulling in more than $450,000 a year, marking the first time in more than two decades that a broad tax increase has been approved with GOP support.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Welcome to this week’s edition of The Daily Banter Mailbag! Today, Bob, Ben and Chez discuss the fiscal cliff, banning pundits and our predictions for 2013!

The questions:

1) A lot of liberals are urging the president to just allow the fiscal cliff to happen, but wouldn’t that result in a recession? If so, isn’t that bad for the liberal movement, ie. the liberal gentry disregarding economic hardship for the sake of “winning” the fiscal cliff fight?
–Kayla

Chez: First of all, I’ll admit that I wasn’t really sure about your use of the word “gentry.” It seemed like you’d gotten it wrong — a case of “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means,” — but then I realized that I was just a little drunk and therefore wasn’t reading you right. That said, I think that allowing us to slide over the fiscal curb, because that’s really what it is, likely wouldn’t be good for the country but there’s no doubt that at this point it would teach the GOP a very serious lesson about hostage politics, given that polls show most Americans blaming the Republicans for fiscal obstructionism. The fact is that whether the GOP wants to accept it or not, a majority of Americans sided with Obama on issues of economics a couple of months ago, which means that he’s got some political capital to spend. It’s good for everyone for both sides of the equation to work out a deal, but the GOP has proven that it’s not the least bit interested in giving Obama an inch. Problem is, the Republicans are going to be the side that pays if everything goes sideways.

Bob: Well, a lot of these same liberals are also saying there might not be a recession, but… I’m not so sure. Considering how spazzy they are in Lower Manhattan, there could be a massive sell-off followed by a drop-off in consumer spending — and right on the heels of a rather anemic holiday shopping season. Now I’ll also qualify my answer by writing that I was hit badly by the Great Recession and so I’m not entirely into the notion of another recession, therefore I’m being cautious. Ultimately, I hope they come up with a deal before the cliff and I hope the president and the Democrats come out on top.

Ben: Hi Kayla, yes, the spending cuts could well result in the beginnings of another recession. Thing is, Obama won’t take the brunt of the blame for it given he has clearly tried to make a deal, whereas Boehner has not (whether he is to blame is another story altogether). I think the most likely scenario is for there to be no deal in the immediate future, and either a new deal somewhere down the line after the cuts/tax hikes go into effect, or an extension of the deadline itself. Obama will probably opt for the long game given that’s what he is good at, and try to make future negotiations less public for the sake of Boehner, who is hamstrung by the loons in his party. If there’s a way he can help Boehner save face, a reasonable deal could be hashed out without the media jumping up and down about it. Obama definitely understands that he can’t have another recession because as you say, it won’t look good politically. I just don’t think we see the full picture of what is going on behind the scenes though, and if we go over the fiscal cliff, I don’t think it’s the end of the world.

2) If you could ban one pundit (left or right) from appearing in any form of media for life who would it be?
–Martin

Bob: That’s a tough question. If Fox News is included, I’d have to go with Greg Gutfeld from “The Five” and “Red Eye.” He’s a troll and has no business meddling anywhere near “news” — however loosely that word is employed at Fox News. If we exclude Fox News (because it’s too easy), I’d have to go with Mark Halperin of course. He’s an insufferable hack with nothing of value to add to the conversation. His only role on cable news is to be wrong all the time, while also reinforcing the conventional wisdom inside the DC press.

Ben: Mark Levin. He’s the most obnoxiously annoying loud mouthed chicken hawk I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing or hearing. There’s something about his nasally, high pitched hectoring that I find genuinely painful to listent to, and I’m at a loss as to why anyone thinks he should be on air. Michelle Malkin is up there too. She really is a spiteful, nasty human being.

Chez: Mark Halperin, because he’s a self-serving douche and he’s always wrong. And David Sirota, because he’s just a self-serving douche.

3) Name several of your predictions for 2013, political or otherwise.
–R.B.

Chez: By this time next year I’ll be issuing a lot of predictions for 2014 that very likely won’t come true. The Republicans will be insane. :Psy will be elected governor of California. Also, Larry King will be dead.

Bob: Hmm. There will be a serious gun control law signed by the president, but only after a heated debate that will surely be covered here. Lincoln will win best picture at the Oscars, Daniel Day-Lewis will win best actor, but Spielberg won’t win best director nor does he deserve to. That honor will go to Ben Affleck for Argo. Chris Christie will easily win re-election. Lance Armstrong will finally confess to using performance enhancing drugs, and thus begin the long process of rehabilitating his reputation. And Americans will continue to not give a shit about the climate crisis.

Ben: 1: The world will continue (unless the Mayans were off).
2: The Daily Banter becomes one of the biggest politics/news/media sites in the world
3: The Republicans don’t sort themselves out.

——

Got a question for the mailbag? Email us at TheDailyBanter@gmail.com!!!

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Welcome to this week’s edition of The Daily Banter Mailbag! Today, Bob, Ben and Chez discuss the fiscal cliff, the NRA and the end of the world!
The questions:

1) What do you think of the theory that President Obama may be making concessions on the “fiscal cliff” deal because it helps the White House if Boehner can rein in the crazies in his House (which he can’t)?
– Carl

Chez: I did hear that this week and I thought that while it makes a certain amount of sense — and Obama is pretty good at strategy in these things — it kind of feels a little too much like a reach. Like whoever came up with it is trying with all his might to look on the bright side and shield the president from criticism. That said, Boehner’s fucked. Like you said, he can’t rein in the lunatic caucus in the GOP-controlled House — which by the way comprises pretty much all Republican House-members.

Bob: It’s difficult to know whether he’s actually making concessions or whether the rumors are just trial balloons, so I don’t really know. But let me throw this out there: while I’m a supporter of Social Security at an almost chromosomal level and I strongly believe that the way to strengthen Social Security is to expand or eliminate the income cap on the payroll tax, there’s a side of me that’s a little annoyed with senior citizens. A supermajority of seniors voted for Mitt Romney this year, and they typically vote for the candidate who is more likely to cut Medicare and Social Security, so in a strange way, they’re kind of voting for cuts. That said, seniors (whichever way they voted) have seen few if any cost of living adjustments recently, so cutting those adjustments even more is a really bad idea.

Ben: I really couldn’t say how much water the theory holds, but it is in Obama’s nature to work for consensus and compromise. He’s already offered way too much to the Republicans, so I’m praying he doesn’t try to give them any more (which they won’t accept anyway). It’s going to suck, but I’m betting they go over the ‘fiscal cliff’ on January if Obama sticks to his guns – which he should. The fallout is far, far worse for the Republicans as tax cuts will automatically go back to Clinton era levels and they will be blamed for any stalling in the economy that happens due to spending cuts. It’s a lose lose situation for Boehner who simply cannot stop the crazies derailing negotiations. Obama is trying to extend an olive branch, but Boehner has virtually no wiggle room.

2) Do you think it’s really possible that the NRA will be willing to compromise and work toward meaningful gun safety regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting?
– Lisa

Bob: Not a chance in hell. The only thing they’ll perhaps try to do is to deflect the blame away from guns and onto video games, TV shows and the arts in general. They’ll also push for TSA style security measures in schools, the arming of teachers — an in-school arms race, basically — and more of the surveillance state that’s arisen since 9/11. That’s how they’ll “help.”

Ben: No. The NRA will offer silly, inconsequential suggestions for gun control that would have no impact on the gun related homicide rate. I’m guessing they will suggest something like stricter mental health background checks and more security at schools. To stop people being murdered by dangerous weapons, America needs to ban the guns that make killing easy (ie. assault rifles) and make it a retroactive law by buying back all existing guns owned by civilians. There’s no way the NRA is going to go for that, so anything they say will be a complete waste of time.

Chez: No, I don’t. As I’m writing this, Wayne LaPierre is preparing to go public with a news conference tomorrow and an appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday. He’s promised to offer a real contribution to stop shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary — and let’s be honest, no other shooting has been like Sandy Hook and I can’t imagine one being worse — but I have a feeling that doesn’t denote some kind of change of heart. It probably just means he’ll look all distraught but won’t accept any responsibility for our obscene gun laws and horrific fetishization of firepower and supposedly inviolable right to wield it. If LaPierre really did have a Come to Jesus moment — and it’s possible given the reaction of some on the right who’ve been truly shaken by what happened — then I’m all ears. Doubt it, though. And it’s always important to watch what he says to the public versus what he says to his extremist NRA members.

3) So now that the world hasn’t ended (since if there’s a mailbag this Friday that means the Mayans were wrong) what are you all planning on doing with your lives?
– Jamie

Chez: I don’t know. I had really figured it would all end today so I got rid of everything I owned and holed up in a motel room in Barstow with a local prostitute I picked up in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box. Do they make a morning-after pill for syphilis?

Bob: I intend to do a lot of nice things for my soon-to-be wife. When I’m not doing that, I’ll be spending a considerable amount of time helping to make The Daily Banter a very successful source for news, opinion and entertainment.

Ben: It ain’t over till it’s over Jamie. I’m only going to plan ahead when the last time zone gets to the 22nd of December. All plans are futile in my opinion.

——

Got a question for the mailbag? Email us at TheDailyBanter@gmail.com!!!

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below: