On Wall Street, short selling is making a bet that a particular stock, or the market in general, will decline. If the stock does lose value, the individual short seller reaps a profit. The Republicans in Congress today are short selling America by betting against the success of President Obama's programs to revitalize our country's economy.
Financial short selling is legal and, within reason, provides a function beyond personal gain. Short sellers are often astute individuals who see that a stock is overvalued and their short selling creates a check on the stock's hyperbolic rise in paper value. The problem, and when short selling a stock crosses the line into illegality, is when short sellers take actions that cause the stock to decline in value — creating profit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. One such form of action is attempting to convince others that the stock is worthless and should be sold.
How does this analogy apply to Congress? It is the proper function of the opposition party to provide a check and balance to the party currently in power. This is like the useful aspect of financial short selling. But the line into unacceptable behavior is crossed when the opposition attempts to cause the administration to fail. This is like selling an orange juice stock short and then running ads screaming "Orange juice is dangerous to your health," or yelling "Fire" in a crowded building that is not burning.
I find it unacceptable for any American, and especially for members of Congress, to publicly express a wish for the duly elected administration to fail, or to create conditions that increase the likelihood of failure. Did we Democrats do everything we could to draw attention to President Bush's failures? Absolutely. Did we spotlight his impeachable actions? Of course. But did Democrats risk America by attempting to create failure? Never.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy
Here you go Jonathan. This is not an endorsement for Democratic politicians. But this fits in with the gist of your article.
Republicans in Desperation Over Obama Releasing More Bush Torture Memos
Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.
2 - roger nowosielski
This is outrageous. It's political blackmail. They should be released no matter what. Failure to do so will leave a stain on his integrity and character.
3 - Ruvy
I don't know if you guys have been paying careful attention to this fine gentleman's article here. It is carefully written to generate the feeling that Republicans should be censured in one way ore another for disloyalty. These terms are not used in the article itself. But you sure as heck do get that sense from it.
Mr. Huie is making great progress in his campaign of shilling for the "Blessed of Hussein". This article is short, sweet, to the point, makes its analogies clearly; and it never leaves the gentle tone of a man simply calling for loyalty and support of the leader in attempting to fight a crisis.
I'm saying this as a fellow who was once a Republican - and who was once a Democrat. So, I have no partisan ax to grind here. But those of you in the States who value your freedom - or what little remains of it - pay careful attention to this man.
4 - roger nowosielski
Ruvy.
There's also a great deal of improvement on your part, I daresay - especially since the last piece by Mr. Huie with respect to which you and he were in a mortal combat. Another interesting aside - your approval of "loyalty and support of the leader in attempting to fight a crisis."
That's a new one to me. I was under the impression you wanted America to fail.
5 - Clavos
Boy, did you totally misread Ruvy's comment, Roger.
He's being more than a little ironic.
6 - Ruvy
You really do not understand what I'm writing here at all do you, Roger?
I'm not agreeing with the writer. I'm complimenting his ability to put together so short an article calling for "support of the leader" which makes it seem that the opposition in Congress is disloyal because its actions - without ever coming out and saying so. You sure fell for its implications.
The article was written with skill and talent. Considering what we saw of Mr. Huie's writing last time out - empty, hazy, barely making its points - this article seems a radical improvement.
As to my own attitude regarding this article - consider whose ox was NOT getting gored.
7 - roger nowosielski
Well, I sure as hell did, in that case. Was trying to give him credit (haven't read the article, yet) and that's what I get for trying to be generous.
For a second, I didn't believe my eyes. Well, I should have known better.
8 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Ruvy, for bringing me back to the reality. No more free ride as far as you're concerned.
9 - roger nowosielski
BTW, what did you think, Ruvy, of the Ezekiel quote link I posted on the other thread (from Pulp Fiction)? It ought to have been in the Bible.
10 - Baronius
Jonathan - What, specifically, have the Republicans done to undermine the Obama Administration's chance of success?
---
Maybe you've followed the news stories about recognition of the Armenian genocide. During WWI, the Turks of the Ottoman Empire killed more than a million Armenians. Neither they nor any subsequent Turkish government have ever admitted to this atrocity. In 2007, the new Democratic House pressed for a formal recognition of the genocide, and for a call for Turkey to do the same.
Why? The US has officially recognized the genocide for decades. Recognition would do nothing for Armenia, and it's not like there are a lot of 120-year-old war criminals hiding from justice. Even Israel doesn't acknowledge the genocide because Turkey is an ally (and Israel's a pretty genocide-conscious country).
So why did the Democrats push this issue in 2007? Look at a map of Iraq. Turkey is our only ally that shares a border. The only effect of that House measure would have been to damage US-Turkish relations. Now that Obama is in office, and needs a win in Iraq, he's backpedalling on the genocide.
There's an example of deliberate sabotage against the war effort.
11 - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
Baronius, with regard to, "What, specifically, have the Republicans done to undermine the Obama Administration's chance of success?" follow the links in the body of the article, if you haven't already - especially the link under "unacceptable behavior."
12 - Ruvy
what did you think, Ruvy, of the Ezekiel quote link I posted on the other thread (from Pulp Fiction)? It ought to have been in the Bible.
Sorry, Roger, my bad - I haven't gotten to it yet. I gotta dig it up now....
13 - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
Roger, with regard to #2, please be clear that it is President Obama who is attempting to release the Bush torture memos, and the Republicans who are threatening to filibuster his legal appointments if he releases those memos.
14 - Ruvy
Well, Roger, I did look it up. It stands to show how lines from the Tana"kh can mean quite other than literalists or distorters make them mean.
What you have in the link, fixed up a bit, could make a lesson shiúr on mercy, and on following the Tana"kh with an attitude of faith, and on seeing the miraculous, rather than arrogantly putting down everything to coincidence.
Thanks!
15 - Ruvy
For those of you having trouble figuring out what must seem like a private conversation on a public forum, the link Roger mentioned is here.
16 - Baronius
- An unsourced report in The Daily Beast
- a quote from Limbaugh, a man who has no power to sell President Obama short
- an editorial
- some interesting data on cloture votes that doesn't have anything to do with Republicans trying to undermine President Obama
- an article about bipartisanship
Jonathan, you're not exactly presenting an airtight case.
17 - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
Baronius, is the Wall Street Journal a better source
18 - Clavos
Baronius, is the Wall Street Journal a better source...
Umm, Jonathan,
The WSJ link you provide in #17 takes one to excerpts of articles from blogs, (and links to them); it is not material written and produced by the WSJ itself, therefore it's not a source in this case.
Here's a good HTML Tutorial to learn how to format links.
19 - Baronius
Not if all the links lead back to The Daily Beast. Maybe there is something to this, but it doesn't make the case that the Republicans are trying to sink the Obama Administration. They're opposing two nominees. It's a bit melodramatic to call such opposition "sabotage".
20 - Ruvy
Here's a good HTML Tutorial to learn how to format links.
You beat me to it, Clavos.... Damn! Scooped again!
21 - Ruvy
Seriously, Jonathan, if you intend to shill for Obama here on a regular basis, you do need to format links so that the rest of us can see those compelling arguments of yourn.
22 - Baronius
Hey, that's funny. Cindy's article links back to The Daily Beast, too. This is a demonstration of the weakness of internet journalism.
23 - Cindy
Baronius,
"Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper's magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications."
That's the author of the article. He's the one who has the sources and did the story.
So, any chance you managed to debunk the story? Or is it just automatically lies because the guy published on the Daily Beast?
24 - Baronius
Cindy, you've got to admit that it's instructive. Jonathan cites source A, you cite source B, Jonathan confirms the story with source C when questioned, but B and C link back to A. This Scott Horton and his unnamed sources carry a lot of weight.
25 - Cindy
Baronius,
Here is Scott Horton's article on how the John Brennan, the guy Obama wanted to make head of the CIA, a pro-torture guy, was holding up the memos last week.
In Brennan, Cheney has a Friend
"Brennan argued that disclosure of the memos would be harmful because it would “embarrass” and “shame” CIA officers who had used the techniques."
You think the idea that GOP members are holding up the release of the memos is suspect? You think it's the Democrats? Fine. Personally, it doesn't matter to me which bad guy is the worst bad guy. Blame whoever you like. I just want the memos released.