US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

this is the new politics thread

scott brown is the voice of a new generation

scott brown has a truck

is he an NRA member?

Is he a NAMBLA member?

this thread is for discussion of scott brown, communism, and german poets

NRA member? he single handedly destroyed the democratic party! motherfucker is practically rambo

Yeah. Obama v. Brown in 2012.

sb

Me? Yikes.

he put the system on trial

*pokes index finger at temple*

and won

Symmetry...

we need 51 scott browns - one for prez and the rest can be govs

truly stunning to see the relative unknown scott brown defeat the incumbent president olympia snowe. i'm still coming to terms with it

Vice President Bachmann was hilarious at her swearing-in.

don't mess with president brown! massachusetts uber alles

why hasn't Scott Brown fixed the economy yet?

These are distressing scenarios. Maybe Pres. Obama should step aside now, for the good of the party, so we can nominate someone else and have a chance to keep the White House in 2012. Rep. Kucinich, perhaps.

Swept to office on a wave of Brownshirts.

lol daria

so disappointed that President Brown hasn't delivered on his promise of free ponies for all American little girls. more business as usual from those jokers in the capital.

What Do I Know?
Josh Marshall | January 20, 2010, 5:29PM

It was clear for about a week that Martha Coakley was probably going to lose last night's senate election. And anticipating that defeat we started talking about the 'X Factor', whether the shock or demoralization of a Massachusetts defeat would change the vote calculus in the House. But I really thought the problem was going to be on the right of the Democratic caucus -- various Blue Dogs, Freshmen/Sophomores, Red State Dems, etc. But that does not seem to be what's happening. According to Greg Sargent, a group of House liberals just met with Speaker Pelosi and told her categorically that they won't vote for the Senate bill.

On the one hand, as David notes, I'm not sure how much weight we should put in that 'categoricalness' of the claim since the House progressives have crossed a bunch of lines they drew in the sand this year. But it shows you where they are.

And along the lines of the sort of denial these folks seem to be in, there's this graf from Greg's piece ...

Tellingly, House liberals also urged Pelosi to consider passing individual pieces of reform through the House as individual bills, and sending them to the Senate to challenge the upper chamber to reject them, Grijalva tells me. Liberals said this approach would be preferable to passing the Senate bill.

They really do think they're going to get another bite at the apple.

facepalm.jpg

yknow i remember in 2006 watching the returns come in and a couple races (webb, tester) were reallllllly close, and schumer announced that it looked like we'd take back the senate, and everyone was just elated beyond belief! 51-49! so much could get done! now we're at 59-41 with a democratic president and suddenly we can't pass any legislation at all right?

In fact, when Brown talked about scrapping the health reform effort and starting over because "we can do better," the Republican crowd started a chant that had to send a tiny shiver down the spine of even the most confident White House staffer.

"Yes we can!" Brown's supporters shouted. "Yes we can!"

lol

i know -- we have more power than some realize IF WE USE IT. but some folks w/n the party just want to give up w/t a fight. that is what is so frustrating here.

i mean, LET THE GOP filibuster everything. enough w/ this fake-ass bipartisan horseshit.

51-49! so much could get done! now we're at 59-41 with a democratic president and suddenly we can't pass any legislation at all right?

yeah, kinda amazing that they've all swallowed McConnell's line about the supermajority being necessary. I see zero discussion of calling Republicans' bluff on a filibuster, which is pathetic.

"Yes we can!" Brown's supporters shouted. "Yes we can!"

YEEEEESSSSS WWWEEEEEE CCCAAAAANNNNNN !!!!!

There is no leadership. It doesn't matter what the numbers are if none of them hold the party line.

at 59-41 we're exactly at the point we were after election day. it took a while for specter to change his stripes, remember?

jesus, i'd give anything right now to be in front of tonight's caucus meetings. jesus christ, my GRANDMA has more cojones that you lot! what the fuck.

i'd subtract lieberman from that 59 (what exactly is the point of "letting" him caucus w/ the Democrats now that the supermajority is out of the question?) and still the Dems would have 58 ... and still acting like pussies.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/fred-barnes-right

Credit where credit is due:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is the new king of Capitol Hill. His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.

Persuading the entire GOP caucus to withdraw from negotiations, many of whom seemed to support the basic goals of the legislation, put incredible pressure on the Democrats. Every last Democratic Senator became a kingmaker, and the result both forced some ugly (though very small bore) compromises, and stretched out the negotiations long enough for lightning to strike.

What's amazing is that some Democrats think their best play now is to go back to the GOP, negotiate a small bore compromise, get it done quickly, and start bashing the Republicans on the bank tax. Don't they realize McConnell will just run the same play on them again?

so depressing. here i go again asking a really naive question, but why is mcconnell serving in elected office? i mean uh, does no one have an interest in governing the country?

xpost

"This time, Charlie Brown, I'll let you hit it!"

i think he has an interest in ruling it. "governance," lol, sounds like SOMEbody went to college!!

but anyway, now that we got ol' scotty brown into the Washington House, medicare is gonna run itself forever and all those uninsured will simply not be a problem! i just checked the cost trendlines and they are already going down. i seriously just checked.

The important verb, goole, is "trending" down.

man don't you get it, we're not even gonna talk about "trending" anymore!

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster.

if only Dems had been so united during Dubya's tenure... but presenting a united front isn't what Dems are about now is it

http://shellysindland.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lieberman2.jpg

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, United Front)

Man, you can't post that portrait often enough.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-more-liberal-than.html

Which might explain this.

silver, previous post:

Back in 2008, the smart liberal spin on "post-partisanship" -- one which I frankly bought into -- is that it was in part an effort to put a popular, centrist sheen on a relatively liberal agenda. Instead, as Leonhardt points out, what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda.

*facepalm*
i was wondering last year if the messaging about bringing so much change didn't.. make it easier to attack anything obama did as radical change, even if that was not at all the case

I blame Obama, the most popular man in the country, for leaving stewardship of healthcare legislation in the hands of the least popular folks in the country, the Congress.

"This time, Charlie Brown, I'll let you hit it!"

http://i46.tinypic.com/2drulj6.jpg
(left: Democrats, right: Republicans)

i was wondering last year if the messaging about bringing so much change didn't.. make it easier to attack anything obama did as radical change, even if that was not at all the case

Which is why you ignore "messaging."

I blame Obama, the most popular man in the country, for leaving stewardship of healthcare legislation in the hands of the least popular folks in the country, the Congress.

― mayor jingleberries, Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:13 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

unfortunately that part of our constitution remains intact

Well the fact that he was so piss scared of what happened with Clintons involvement in the 90s that he went the opposite way and kinda stayed out of the whole drafting process.. Thats my beef.

kinda stayed out of the whole drafting process.

this isn't true either! numerous accounts show that in all the meetings to hash out language, WH bods like nancy ann deparle were there. what they gave up control on was the timing, which was left to all the committee chairs.

i think they wanted to give the public the impression they were being hands off and letting congress do its thing, and to do so they really did have to be more hands off than clinton was. but it's not a black and white kind of a thing

but how could it possibly have been otherwise? WH can't set congressional committee agendas

Im sure President Scott Brown will do a better job tho so Im not worried.

most of the millions of people mao killed were committee chairs. something to think about.

Think of the potential millions killed by death panels.

President Brown definitely has the finest cosmo body of any post-Kennedy president except for Obama imo

krugman weighs in

some douchebag at Brown's press conf today actually did ask if he was prez material

that's an odd interpretation of obama's statement tbh

xpost

I don't know. I think the point that Krugman is making, and others have been making, is that in the absence of anyone with a spine in the democratic party, Obama needed to come out and make a STRONG argument for moving forward and passing this damn thing. Obama didn't throw in the towel, no, but he also didn't come close to making the sort of statement that could have rallied the troops.

Obama needed to be George Scott at the beginning of Patton, and instead he was like "let's just do what we can, not all of it so bad lol"

Obama Today: "Why you looka so sad/Itsa not so bad. . ."

massachusetts voters just expressed their will to elect a guy who explicitly said he'd vote against HCR - i think it's wise to let the dust settle before jumping in with "ignore these fucks"

I think it's a perfect interp of the Slickster's spin

seriously the amount of instant fanboi butthurt here is through the roof - what is up with josh marshall's one-line post about obama "throwing in the towel" on HCR?? maybe if he'd admonished me to "think about it" in a putative second sentence i'd know the answer??

I suppose it comes down to how much you think HCR took a hit over the past 24 hours, and how strong of a response was necessary to stabilize the situation. Marshall/Krugman/myself (I am the www's sixth most popular political blogger fyi) see a tailspin and an absence of leadership, so Obama's weak sauce statement was just another indicator that no one's really going to lead.

truth is, if obama has a political talent its letting the right tire itself out w/ self-congratulation for a news cycle, and then stepping forward and 'leading'

see also--jeremiah wright last year, hcr in august/sept

not that im saying thats what hes doing here

just that it would be a familiar strategy

"Obama needed to be George Scott at the beginning of Patton"

everyone needs to be more like that imho

paul krugman was at any point an Obama fanboi?!?

That's his thing, for sure, but I don't see how it works in this case. The best hope was to pass it in the House, but house dems are falling off like flies on the left. Trying to water it down AGAIN in the Senate for Snowe or Collins seems like the worst idea of all time. Would his plan be to wait 3 weeks, and then "lead" by signing a bill that just has the basic stuff that everyone agrees on - no more denying coverage for previous conditions, etc - but none of the (already watered down) more progressive elements that are sorely needed?

xpost

haven't followed this too much (too depressing), but isn't this what happens with obama all the time? he absorbs hit-after-hit, is accused of being too soft, unable to counterpunch or attack and so forth. then, after the other side has "punched itself out," so to speak, he steps forward and delivers a speech that galvanizes support and rallies the troops. he did this in the primaries, the general election, the big speech in favor of the stimulus. i hope and assume he'll follow his pattern and do it again.

but who knows? maybe it will be pres. brown/vice president palin.

Seriously thought the first post would be Brown's centerfold picture from Cosmo

Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense, but what am I missing with how the "wait and the lead" approach can possibly work this time (see my post just above)? I'm probably just missing something really obvious, but I don't see how he ever gets back the house dem votes that he's losing now if he waits a few weeks.

he gave his big health care speech already! then the dems proceeded to waste more time and make more concessions to insurance companies/conservadems like lieberman and nelson, which depressed the hell out of the base, who rahm emanuel told to f*** off basically, which helped rally them no doubt

here ya go michael

http://i38.tinypic.com/im8n02.jpg

that picture is disturbing.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense, but what am I missing with how the "wait and the lead" approach can possibly work this time (see my post just above)? I'm probably just missing something really obvious, but I don't see how he ever gets back the house dem votes that he's losing now if he waits a few weeks.

― CATBEAST!! (Z S), Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:12 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

IF this is the strategy hes playing hes not going to wait a few weeks, hell wait a few days

anyway i hope you guys all called your congressman today!

dont tell anyone but i called my congresswoman AND my old congressman

i live in the city of taxation-without-representation, my congresswoman can't even vote

one of my US senators (the guy running the DSCC) is at least mouthing the right words about fighting and shit. OTOH, he cut his teeth in Hudson County, NJ (a political sewer that even Clay Davis from The Wire would find too nasty).

my mom called - we are doomed

tidbits:

"hey that guy quit today (note: she's referring to the TSA nom) because he had such a shady past"
"well mom he was being held up by the GOP and.."
"oh no he wasn't"

http://i46.tinypic.com/11algyt.jpg

then, after the other side has "punched itself out," so to speak, he steps forward and delivers a speech that galvanizes support and rallies the troops

The State of the Union speech is in 1 week.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2uiac5f.gif
sorry

THAT IS DISTURBING

politics is disturbing

lol Chuck Todd today made the same point: his WH sources told him that the Oval Office was going to let the right wing talk itself to death in the next couple of days before Obama swung into action on Friday or Monday.

WH sources have been in communication with me, too, which is how i know their strategy

Do the group of progressive house senators who made it clear today that they would not vote for the senate version of the bill know of his plan?

they communicate with me through my dental fillings.

eh. best-case scenario progressive reps are essentially giving moderates some cover inna overton window kind of way. frank has already walked back his comments. i imagine that fairly universal liberal base outrage over ppl tryna scuttle healthcare + more or less unanimous feeling among even center-left pundits had a lot of effect.

Tr.: progressive reps are chicken-hearted and gutless.

j/k -- got to get HCR

frank, btw, probably has been kind of harsh about this since his district went half for brown last night--hes probably a lil scared

according to my mom Frank has been president for 9 years now

don't worry y'all just got this email from my pal mitch : )

Matt --
Yesterday's disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change. I know the OFA community and the President share that frustration.
We also saw what we knew to be true all along: Any change worth making is hard and will be fought at every turn. While it doesn't take away the sting of this loss, there is no road to real change without setbacks along the way.
We could have simply sought to do things that were easy, that wouldn't stir up controversy. But changes that aren't controversial rarely solve the problem.
Our country continues to face the same fundamental challenges it faced yesterday. Our health care system still needs reform. Wall Street still needs to be held accountable. We still need to create good jobs. And we still need to continue building a clean energy economy.
The President isn't walking away from these challenges. In fact, his determination and resolve are only stronger. We must match that commitment with our own.
But it won't be easy. Real change never is. For that reason, I am grateful you're part of this fight with us.

Thank you,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

ed rendell just told rachel maddow, look we don't NEED 60 votes to pass this thing, we need 51. we only need 60 to break a filibuster, so let's get this to the senate and let them filibuster if they really think that's what they want to do, let them explain to the public why they are holding up reform, and if we lose at least go down fighting for something we believe in. maddow's like RIGHT ON.

omg that guy mitch emails me all the time

BACK OFF HE'S MINE

hands off pal

Yesterday's disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change

^^ love this line btw, obamas facebook used it too

i mean how can you NOT be discontented with the pace of change

there is no american voter who is saying right now, "change is going at exactly the right pace"

it's like gw bush saying the 06 midterm results show the public desire for a stronger commitment in iraq

(sorta, as a political strategy)

kind of ambiguous, considering that one of the conservative/independent complaints about HCR (and other parts of obama's agenda) is: SLOW DOWN. (i think this is BS but hey maybe some of those grumpy independents got the email and were like, ok they get it! the pace of change has been too fast!)

yeah its ambiguity was my point

SLOW DOWN = "i don't have a legitimate complaint, please stall until everyone forgets what they were doing!"

it isn't intended to be ambiguous. it's intended to turn the focus away from democratic fumbling, ineffective leadership, distasteful horsetrading, etc., and make the debate about gop obstructionism.

Please slow down until the 2010 elections! thank you!

oh jeez guys i was just making a joke anyway

hahahahahahahahahaha

there is no american voter who is saying right now, "change is going at exactly the right pace"

I'm saying that, over and over like a mantra, but mainly just to piss max off

as mantras go it's pretty soothing tho tbh

xxxp
and make the debate about gop obstructionism.

it would be good if someone mentioned this in actual words though. republicans were doing shit like filibustering troop equipment bills in the senate to delay healthcare passing, they should be getting creamed.

ed rendell just told rachel maddow, look we don't NEED 60 votes to pass this thing, we need 51....maddow's like RIGHT ON.

Let's not forget this POS bill is not reform.

you just don't want me to be happy do you?

now that i can't have it i'm all like "daaaamn health care reform bill, have you been working out girl? we should grab a drink some nite this week"

ed rendell just told rachel maddow, look we don't NEED 60 votes to pass this thing, we need 51....maddow's like RIGHT ON.

Let's not forget this POS bill is not reform.

― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:47 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Let's not forget this mediocre bill does more good than bad.

Whiney, a serious discuss of the relative merits of GAPDY has broken out in that poll thread you started

hahaha wrong thread. i should go to bed.

i must admit i was really curious to see what you'd posted here

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/gop-pollster-mass-results-not-a-referendum-on-obamas-overall-agenda/

The problem isn't that health-care reform itself is unpopular. It is that people are turned off by the current debate about it.

can't be said enough imo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011902846.html

i.e. this is why you get polls asking people if they "are positive about health care reform" or some crap and they say no, leading to a spate of AP stories about how "support for reform is cratering" - no, people are just fed up with the pussyfooting and ass-mongering

and when i say "people" i mean all people, with no exceptions

I think people who are worried they're not gonna get paid as well after "reform" are pretty happy with the pussyfooting.

I would imagine the healthcare progressives (or the people across party lines who are like DID YOU HEAR US ASKING NO MORE LIKE TELLING YOU WE'RE FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION, YO) are sick and tired of seeing the perfect 60 majority being the enemy of the good 50+ support for PO/exchanges and it would be wise to say that a simple majority favours this approach. If that's the case they should just go for it and call the bluff on the filibuster, and yes I do recognise the dreaming in print aspect of wanting this to happen.

People who self-identify as Independents run the gamut from crazies with tea party signs to Reagan Democrats to people who just don't register for a party, and the main thing they have in common with the US left is that they think Wall Street is full of douchebags. Your normal person sees bailout to bonus types like the creep that borrows $100 from you when you don't really have it (but you lend anyway) and then when they're flush again, get very cavalier about paying it back even if they can see you're broke. People feel dissed, like you would in that situation.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/1/21/1264063602746/21.01.10-Steve-Bell-on-Sc-007.jpg

gail collins kind of entertaining:

Gradually, we are reaching a consensus that Coakley lost because the irritable voters wanted to send a message. Which was: change.

Change all over the place! Except apparently not in beating up the bankers, since the Democrat favored a tax on big banks to pay for the bailout and the Republican opposed it.

And not change that involves getting out of Afghanistan. That was Coakley’s idea. Brown wants to stay the course.

Stay the course, for sure. But stop spending so much money on the course. Cut the budget! Except when it comes to the troops, who need all the support we can give them. As Scott Brown kept pointing out.

Scott Brown has a truck. Maybe there could be more trucks.

collins has been on fire of late

i mean for a nyt columnist

Another Massachusetts Democrat, Rep. Stephen Lynch, also issued a warning Democrats against trying to duck the Brown result by having the House pass the Senate bill unchanged, thereby avoiding another Senate vote. "I don't hear a lot of support on our side for [the Senate] bill," he said. "The problem is that we are spending almost a trillion dollars and folks are telling me I should vote 'yes' and we will fix it later. You wouldn't buy a car for a trillion dollars and say, 'Yeah, it doesn't run but we will fix it later.'"

oh, good analogy

The problem isn't that health-care reform itself is unpopular. It is that people are turned off by the current debate about it.

Um, yes. Especially the ugly backroom vote-buying schemes and promise-breaking, non-televised dealmaking.

stephen lynch already voted for the health care bill. i dont see what he thinks is going to happen if he changes his mind and votes against a slightly worse version--people are going to realize he was against it all along?

cant believe obama has ushered in an era of back room vote-buying schemes

literally never happened before in the history of these united states

except that he specifically said he wouldn't do that. He said all the negotiations on HCR would be on C-SPAN. His words, not my expectations.

a politician breaking a promise

what would george washington think

hed probably kill himself

shorter Collins: "those dumb fuck voters! heh heh heh heh heh heh!"

glad youve been standing up for the lil guy recently tracer

?

i honestly have no idea what that means max :(

but for the record, gail collins is a supercilious nitwit who is so enraptured by her own place in versailles that she uses her "politics" column to alternately make fun of regular people and moan about how boring all discussion of policy is

lol i just meant thats the second time youve called out someone for being 'condescending' on these threads

collins has been hilar recently!

i mean again, "hilar" has a low bar in the nyt op eds page

i don't think that's a fair description of collins at all. it is sort of a fair description of dowd at her worst (which is a lot of the time). collins is a whole other thing, she knows and cares plenty about policy, but she also obviously knows that "policy" a lot of the time has only a glancing relationship to politics -- which is really the point of that column. she, krugman and herbert are the good guys on that page, afaic. (ok, kristof too most of the time.)

yeah dowd is a whole other level of nitwittery

I can't ever take Mo seriously after her shenanigans against the Clintons.

The other night my labor activist pal said of the Senate bill, "I hope the angel Moroni fucks Harry Reid up the ass, unlubed."

every once in a while dowd writes something pointed and coherent. but it's a rarity, and most of the time she's caught up in trying to make idiotic puns and what she seems to think of as cutting, catty one-liners. what's even worse is you can tell her writing "style" sometimes influences friedman, like they're engaged in misguided-wordplay one-upsmanship.

xp:
isn't that what mormons hope for when they die?

Hitchens called Reid "that Mormon mediocrity" in 2006. Prescient!

stephen lynch already voted for the health care bill. i dont see what he thinks is going to happen if he changes his mind and votes against a slightly worse version--people are going to realize he was against it all along?

100% confused by this line of thinking - he voted for one, doesn't like a worse one: he's obligated to like the thing that isn't the thing he voted for?

"can I have a ham sandwich"
"sure thing sir, here is your tuna sandwich"
"I don't like tuna where is my ham"
"stop being a hypocrite"

100% confused by this line of thinking - he voted for one, doesn't like a worse one: he's obligated to like the thing that isn't the thing he voted for?

― Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:50 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah id buy this except that lynch isnt objecting to the bill, hes objecting to its cost--which is... the same

GOOD LORD, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY

(movie quotes aside, the point still stands; if you agree to X at a particular price and someone gives you something less than X, you probably don't want to spend the same amount of money on it)

i guess im reading that quote as being abt his political chances in november vis-a-vis the bill? lynch is a conservative democrat so i cant imagine that he prefers the house bill...

the tuna costs the same as the ham, are you sure you don't want it?

also we shouldnt really be talking about the differences btw the house bill and the senate bill, we should be talking about the differences between the senate bill and the modified senate bill that the house would have to approve which are... miniscule, mostly

especially now that labor has give the house the go-ahead

midterm campaign slogan:

Democrats -- We're the Best You Can Get, Even Now

i thought that was always their slogan?

I was gonna say!

but it gets funnier as they get worse and worse.

if you agree to X at a particular price and someone gives you something less than X, you probably don't want to spend the same amount of money on it

What if that thing is Ebola or Nickelback?

sigh

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

govt for sale, as it should be.

the tuna costs the same as the ham, are you sure you don't want it?

real talk, I will shill for any network that hires darraghmac as a color commentator on American politics. that is just the extent of the lols he brings. any network heads who check this thread please take note

she knows and cares plenty about policy

* boggles *

tracer i honestly have no idea what your problem with gail collins is. ideology-wise, she's basically an outraged liberal feminist. and she was also a political reporter and columnist for years and years before she ever went to the times. but whatever anyway.

collins columns in 2010:

jan 6 - byron dorgan is someone i have barely heard of, why is he important now?

jan 8 - washington wizards handgun scandal and tiger woods. also, twitter

jan 14 - coakley is a bad, unlikeable candidate. also, senate rules are unfair

jan 15 - massachusetts voters are voting emotionally, i thought those days were over

jan 20 - voters are crazy

i have left out some giuliani and palin material but please set me straight if there were policy issues that i somehow missed in there

i am amazed you can detect any ideology in her at all beyond "la di da, this politics game sure is nuts! byeeeeeeeeee"

lol you are making her sound like a psuedonym for me

perhaps you'd prefer to listen to Chris Matthews talk about the Great Significance of horse-race politics

i like the tuna analogies upthread, b/c we all know what smells like tuna & how the Democrats have been acting lately so ...

stupid Senate rules are policy-related, btw

LOL: mikemadden Why stop at just spending? SCOTUS should have ruled that corporations can actually run for office. 30 minutes ago from UberTwitter

I look forward to voting for President Wal-Mart and Vice President General Motors.

again, collins writes about the gaps between politics and policy and the way they interact. that's a sort of important part of how things work or don't and why. it's a natural thing for political writers to write about. she treats a lot of it like it's frivolous because a lot of it is frivolous and trivial and distracting from what's actually going on -- which is usually sort of the core point of her columns -- that rome's burning back there somewhere. if you don't like her flippant tone, fine, but matt taibbi's flippant too -- that doesn't mean either of them isn't smart or serious.

I'm not sure where to stick this, but SCOTUS just gutted McCain-Feingold.

Have you guys read Jennifer Government? It feels like that's where we're currently headed.

xp: max posted that upthread

See, if we just get rid of the Gail Collinses and get more Tim Russert's Kids, things will be perfect!

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/likefatherlikespawn.jpg

in a way i think the scotus ruling just sort of makes it all official. instead of corporate whores we can elect corporate spouses.

time to move to Amsterdam

tipsy what you call "gaps between politics and policy" i call speculative mindreading of the electorate - which is a lot easier than research and analysis

matt taibbi writes long articles stuffed with reporting - his tone is colorful but it's not flippant, it's outraged

i think the only thing that could possibly outrage collins is.. frankly i have no idea what would ruffle her imperturbable wry grin

there are different kinds of outrage. not all of them use exclamation points. but, for example, in one column you mentioned about senate rules:

There are 100 members of the Senate. But as Brown is currently reminding us, because of the filibuster rule, it takes only 41 to stop any bill from passing.

U.S. population: 307,006,550.

Population for the 20 least-populated states: 31,434,822.

That means that in the Senate, all it takes to stop legislation is one guy plus 40 senators representing 10.2 percent of the country.

People, think about what we went through to elect a new president — a year and a half of campaigning, three dozen debates, $1.6 billion in donations. Then the voters sent a clear, unmistakable message. Which can be totally ignored because of a parliamentary rule that allows the representatives of slightly more than 10 percent of the population to call the shots.

Why isn’t 90 percent of the country marching on the Capitol with teapots and funny hats, waving signs about the filibuster?

SCOTUS ruling totally predictable, sadly

i think i have an answer, tipsy! because the 40 republicans in the senate don't actually come from the 20 least populated states - this scenario exists only in her mind

maybe collins could actually try writing about reality instead of typing novels

by the way, if she thinks that US voters sent a clear, unmistakable message in electing barack obama, what does she think the voters of massachusetts did?

ah here it is - national angst is causing people to ignore the issues and just react to candidates’ personalities

she truly is indispensable!

i think i have an answer, tipsy! because the 40 republicans in the senate don't actually come from the 20 least populated states - this scenario exists only in her mind

maybe collins could actually try writing about reality instead of typing novels

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:18 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

thats not her point tracer

shes saying that the filibuster sucks because it allows for a scenario where 10% of the population + 1 senator could feasibly kill legislation supported by 90% of the population

anyway if you want the math on, counting scott brown and splitting the population of states with split delegations, democrats in the senate represent 63% of the population and republicans represent 37%

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/political_math_36_64.php

now see max THAT point is interesting - it deals w/reality, which is usually harder to count

i dont really see how collins's point doesnt deal with reality. shes exactly right about why the filibuster is undemocratic.

she is right about that, but the point about the 20-least populated states is rong cos the dem senators outnumber the rep senators from those states 23-17 (altho it includes a lot of conservative dems if that matter 2 u)

yeah but again she isnt saying that the 20-least populated states thing is why healthcare isnt passing

let me break it down for you right quick

1) dems have a mandate for healthcare
2) thanks to the filibuster, that mandate can be ignored
3) want to know how shitty the filibuster is? it allows senators representing 10% of the population to block legislation

shes not really even talking about healthcare, shes making a general point about the undemocratic nature of the senate

Why isn’t 90 percent of the country marching on the Capitol with teapots and funny hats, waving signs about the filibuster?

i know but i'm not telling

What she is saying is factually correct. The problem is that it is written in such a way that makes it very easy to misinterpret.

To me, the stronger argument is that senators representing 30% of the population are allowed to block a decision that should require a simple majority to pass rather than trying to argue about what might happen in a fantasy situation that is mathematically possible, but not necessarily probably in the foreseeable future.

so if I'm gonna bug franken about this, what am I saying? just urge him to ignore the filibuster threat?

does it contain the word "sheeple"? xxp

morbius you are a mindreader

it also includes the words "dumb" and "fucks"

gbx - bug Ellison - Pelosi just shitcanned the Senate bill.

xp: um not that I don't disagree with the assessment (because duh, I totally do) but how is that position any less condescending

Also the fact that the 90% figure is based on a hypothetical situation, not current reality...

(hi dere: i am kidding)

ok. you cam tell how closely I'm followig this (ie not enough)

Ellison also seriously progressive, health/environment minded; problem w/Senate bill in House seems to be that excise would impact union workers BAAAAAADLY.

let me break it down for you right quick

1) dems have a mandate for healthcare
2) thanks to the filibuster, that mandate can be ignored
3) want to know how shitty the filibuster is? it allows senators representing 10% of the population to block legislation

― max, Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:41 AM

w/u on this.

it rly is incredible that the dems are folding this quickly over a single fucking race. i guess not "surprising" but no less incredible.

are dems actually folding? what's the evidence? i can very much see a bunch of posturing right now - i.e. "no way can we vote for the senate bill" - as staking out positions rather than actual promises

Um guys you know some people sometimes deserve being condescended to.

like, say, people whose votes you want? smart

then again i'm not au fait with the world of funny hats and teapots

I don't think they're folding on HCR yet. But Pelosi says specifically that some of the provisions i.e. shady backdoor deals were unpalatable to her caucus.

folding was probably a bad choice of words, but all this walking back is just like SMH for me

well fuckin good!

christ almighty the same people who a month or so ago were like "they r sellin us out!!" are now like "holy shit just vote for the damn thing, i don't give a shit what's in it"

weird times

xpost

at the very least this has been educational for me wrt the filibuster---srsly had no idea the situation was so undemocratic (going by max's math post)

like, say, people whose votes you want? smart

It works for the GOP. Unless you think telling poor people that tax cuts for the rich are going to help them is not condescending.

seems to me that everyone is engaging in some serious CYA while they scramble to whip votes

democrats are not condescending for like the 400000th time unless all politicians everywhere are

and politicial scientists too

"There is no doubt that ... having this intense a focus on the sausage-making process in Congress is never helpful."

Tell you what, the campaign finance thing is some seriously bogus news. Is Fox News going to be blanketing every market in the nation this fall with 'fair & balanced' mudslinging ads? I guess that depends on what is more important to Rupert; cash (democrats in office = viewers) or a hard right agenda

Corporations should seriously just run for office. Cut the behind-the-scenes bullshit and just do it. I'm sure their lawyers could make the case that refusing to let them would be an infringement on their rights, and thus unconstitutional.

pay no attention to the rat turds in this sausage!

"Scaling this reform back" is like trying to cut down on the production of new MGM musicals

Adam, you do know that Goldman Sachs = Treasury Dept

morbs otm, i want this bill passed but "scaling it back" means... no bill at all basically

BTW that quote is from my president

democrats are not condescending for like the 400000th time unless all politicians everywhere are

I kind of hate to break this to you but something like 95% of American politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are self-aggrandizing, condescending cumstains. It comes with the territory. The trick is making them think that doing what you want them to do plays directly to their self-interest and ego.

lol youre not breaking anything to me

i am irritated with democrats being singled out as "the condescending party" which is chapter 2 in the fox news user manual

I hate to break it you but I think you are correct.

bad news. the test came back and you are...otm. u_u

"Scaling this reform back" is like trying to cut down on the production of new MGM musicals

in love w/you for this simile tbh

I think the point is that Democrats deliver their condescending message in an imperious, condescending manner, whereas Republicans deliver their condescending message in a heavily coded wink-wink nudge-nudge "you and me, we could totally be buds" manner that does not read as condescending to the people they are trying to reach; compare the rhetoric styles of John Kerry and Sarah Palin, for example.

http://politicalsham.com/John%20Kerry%20Wind%20Surfing.jpg

right, so we just need to do condescension the right way

^^^^ yes basically

is FDR dead?

by the way--anyone on this board who wants to see the senate bill passed, as shitty as it is, please take five minutes to call your congressional rep, especially if he or she is a progressive

Adam, you do know that Goldman Sachs = Treasury Dept

But why don't they take it a step further? Unfortunately, the 2nd and 3rd requirements may be filled but as the company was started by a German immigrant Marcus Goldman in 1869, it's status as a 'natural born citizen' may come into question. I'm sure there are ways around this. The company was 'born' in New York City, after all.

it's not as if the qualities of "terrible", "best option available" and "better than the status quo" are mutually exclusive.

it's a dog bill. pass it!

especially if he or she is a progressive

lol don't think I need to bother calling Pelosi fwiw

The company was 'born' in New York City, after all.

is it too late to get an abortion

which dog bills have not been passed ever? Yes, there are some spending bills passed with 90% agreement (I'm guessing) but history is littered with big bills that are dogs and then require "reform" later on down the road.

I really don't get the aversion to fucking putting chips on tables. Oh wait--the idea of losing permanent status as a member of Congress means that some of these fucking slugs will have to go find a real job if they get booted from office.

This may be 20/20 hindsight, but maybe health-care reform in the first year of the Obama term, in the midst of a recession, may have been a bit too ambitious? I think they should probably acknowledge that health-care reform is going to be a very complicated business, that it's taking up too much of Congress's time right now, that maybe they should enact some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure and turn their attention to financial reform, unemployment, housing foreclosures, etc. Then if they survive the midterms with majorities intact, take that as a mandate for some serious nuts-and-bolts reform.

I really don't get the aversion to fucking putting chips on tables. Oh wait--the idea of losing permanent status as a member of Congress means that some of these fucking slugs will have to go find a real job if they get booted from office.

― Obama needs a John McCone (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:35 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what you mean as a lobbyist?

too late for that shit, the Republicans obviously smell blood in the water. Dems can either charge forward and look bold and arrogant and action-oriented or they can scale back and look like pussies - either way they are likely to lose at the polls. Question is which course of action will minimize the damage. I'm inclined to say the former is the better option because at least it will shore up the base.

er x-post

This may be 20/20 hindsight, but maybe health-care reform in the first year of the Obama term, in the midst of a recession, may have been a bit too ambitious? I think they should probably acknowledge that health-care reform is going to be a very complicated business, that it's taking up too much of Congress's time right now, that maybe they should enact some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure and turn their attention to financial reform, unemployment, housing foreclosures, etc. Then if they survive the midterms with majorities intact, take that as a mandate for some serious nuts-and-bolts reform.

― o. nate, Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i mean--thats basically the kind of thinking that has created the modern (shitty) democratic party

"lets wait till we have a mandate, like, i dont know, huge majorities in the house, senate, and control of the executive branch"

unemployment, housing foreclosures

thought they already did summa that

some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure

Didn't someone already try this and get shot to SHIT?!?

ah that's bullshit. health care reform IS a fiscal issue, congress really doesn't have anything better to do (legislate? us? pshaw!) medicaid enlargement IS part of the package (iirc), and it's not as if the battle for financial reform, unemployment (what is congress supposed to do about this, btw? hire more pages?), or foreclosures is any easier or faster or even different.

why do they need to wait until after '10 to get another "mandate," wasn't '08 good enough? what the fuck, they're going to go down in flames anyway, pull the trigger already.

xps heh

Whatshisface, Lieberman torpedoed that, among other idiots. Even though he had CAMPAIGNED ON the idea of expanding Medicare for years, he suddenly changed his mind when it might have allowed the HCR bill to pass.

I think it looks a bit desperate for the Dems that as soon as they get the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate they try to enact one of their perennial, capital-R Reform Agendas, which on the surface at least, seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected (to wit, the Republicans royally fucked up the economy, the deficit, foreign policy, etc.).

you know who looks like the biggest idiot in this mess is fucking Harry Reid. I never liked him much anyway but now the dude is obviously totally ineffectual to boot. Pelosi, by contrast, is practically a knight in shining armor.

seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected

this is wrong. healthcare was like number two issue behind the economy for voters in 08

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works (ie, the minority party hamstrings every fucking thing they can in order to keep the country in a state of paralyzed stasis, forcing the states to fix their problems) and the Democrats don't (because they keep acquiescing to batshit Republican plans that make the country worse).

btw I think this system is categorically awful and should be abolished but the only replacement I'd really be happy with is one where I was named dictator in perpituity

and Obama did their big economic stimulus package FIRST in case you don't remember. ARRA funding is just now starting to really hit the private sector afaict

x-post

well o.nate i don't know what to say to you other than, you're wrong. no, it doesn't look desperate.

xp i dunno shakey, harry ried is gonna get burned over this and he knows it. pelosi will be in washington as long as she cares to be.

I think it looks a bit desperate for the Dems that as soon as they get the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate they try to enact one of their perennial, capital-R Reform Agendas, which on the surface at least, seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected (to wit, the Republicans royally fucked up the economy, the deficit, foreign policy, etc.).

... wait "desperate?"

from eschaton, this is awesome

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/metrofail.jpg

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works

I salute our new Fearless Leader because he is OTFM here. Compare how McConnell has handled the Republican Senate Caucus compared to the Dems under Dubya, who couldn't maintain any kind of unity and let the Rep majority roll right over them.

what looks desperate is democrats collapsing like a house of cards when their 60-vote majority is reduced to a 59-vote majority

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works

It helped that being in the minority for 40 years gave them plenty of time to study the mechanisms of the fed bureaucracy.

i dunno shakey, harry ried is gonna get burned over this and he knows it.

yep, he's a goner at this point. I think he can kiss his Senate career goodbye, he's already not well-liked in his home state and now on top of that he won't even be able to point to any accomplishments as Senate Majority Leader as a reason to keep him. He's gonna lose that seat in November.

Dunno who will get the majority leader nod after him (Schumer? Dunno if he's a good fit, tbh.)

healthcare was like number two issue behind the economy for voters in 08

Well, the economy is still shit though, so maybe they should take care of that first. And I don't really buy the argument that healthcare and the economy are one and the same, and I don't think the voters will either. Everyone realizes that the benefits of healthcare reform to the economy (presumably increased efficiency and cost-containment) are not going to happen for many years, regardless of whether the plan is passed now or in a year's time. I think voters are perhaps saying: Yes we voted for you, but not to enact something that looks suspiciously like a Democrat pet project - but because we trusted you more than the other guys to fix the economy. This is a bit like the GOP taking Bush's re-election in '04 as a mandate for Social Security reform - it wasn't.

? well again, what is there to say. no, it's nothing like social security privatization.

o. nate where do you get your news, politico?

why would ppl that voted overwhelmingly for dems be put off by a suspiciously dem pet project?

also, what do you propose the democrats do, besides pass a $700 billion stimulus in the face of unanimous republican opposition?

Well, he's partly right: if the economy sucks, there ain't no way you're going to convince skeptics like my parents that we need to overhaul the health care system, shitty as they acknowledge it to be.

dude you can't fix huge structural economic problems in less than a year. I hate to parrot an Obama talking point but its really true in this case. The gov't doesn't work that fast, and neither does the economy. Its not like boom JOBS BILl and then a month later JOBS!!

x-post

But UNLIKE Bush in 2004 Obama actually had a mandate, so the time to force the issue was now.

yeah maybe some of that eceonomy bill shoulda appropriated funds for an ad campaign to say "HEY JUST FYI WE PASSED THIS BILL SO THE ECONOMY WOULDNT SUCK SO MUCH ASS. YOU'RE WELCOME."

Also: critics have accused Obama of not "explaining" himself. Putting aside the fact that he's blanketed the airwaves for six months, he can't very well explain the direness of the economic catastrophe we just crawled out of without revealing how much he's indebted to his Wall Street cronies.

as someone who works in an industry that is being specifically targeted by the stimulus/ARRA funding I can say that that money has started coming in in just the past few months - public funding has to go through a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to ensure that its properly handled; there's controls and oversight built into every step of the process, and it takes a little while (i.e., more than a year) for that money to get out into the general economy and spur growth, allow companies to hire more people, get projects built etc. It IS working, but to act like some miracle wand could be waved and change the economy in just a few months is like uh waht

x-posts

on any "economic" issue you care to name: mortgage cramdowns, expanded unemployment insurance, tighter banking regs, establishing a finance consumer protection agency, etc, the legislative dynamic is exactly the same as the one for healthcare -- complete phalanx mindless opposition from the GOP, a bunch of wishy-washy and mostly bought-off interest-pandering moderate dems, a few progressives, and the white house trying to herd cats and watching it's poll numbers go down. it's not different. it's... the same thing!

besides, it's medicare that's going to bankrupt the gov't and medical spending, more than anything else, that's dragging on growth.

xp u guys are fast

I'm viscerally against term limits, but perhaps Congress is where they're needed. It might just be exchanging old shits for new shits, but more non-douchies might slip in. Seniority needs to be blown to smithereens.

but anyway, too late

also, what do you propose the democrats do, besides pass a $700 billion stimulus in the face of unanimous republican opposition?

The stimulus was too small, as Krugman never tires of arguing. But beyond that, even if you can't pass a bigger stimulus, at least look like you're working on the problem. Healthcare reform is extremely complicated. People fear change. Instead of getting bogged down in backroom deals to pass something that looks like a typical Washington over-designed solution, now may be the time to address people's feelings about the current situation. I don't think that people expect government to single-handedly fix the economy, but at least look like you're doing something more than bailing out bankers and taking over car companies.

Term limites are horrible. Look what it did to California. Granted its all douches in there, but nobody knows how to fucking run anything.

Well perhaps that is exactly what we need in DC!

in love w/you for this simile tbh

xo, but I know married men are TROUBLE

Term limits are not of themselves horrible. I think two 6-year Senate terms, and four 2-year house terms, is reasonable. If we can have them for the President, I'm not sure what makes Congressdouches so damned special.

Why the hell should Clinton have been limited to two terms but Strom Thurmond served FOREVER?

I'm wondering what the most unintentionally hilarious word in DC is, but I think "mandate" is high on the list.

Mandate is whatever the fuck you want it to be--if you're in power, you get to decide the agenda, no matter what the electorate says. Ergo, 14,000 riders to a spending bill.

o.nate OTM

xp

term limits are never the answer and I'm against them for presidents too

we already have term limits, they're called elections.

things are bad! drop what you're doing and look busy!

is that a plan for legislative success? for any party? i though o.nate was just criticizing the majority for looking desperate?

now if we could only have public financed elections everything would work out fine and dandy haha

x-post

we already have term limits, they're called elections.

"Stop me before I elect Mitch McConnell again" is fine w/ me

all I have to say is term limits have been a total disaster for my state. if you want any evidence of why they don't work, just survey California's completely crippled gov't.

you end up with a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how gov't should work, how to make deals, how to craft legislation, and with no incentive or imperative or TIME to learn (after all, they're all gonna be gone in a few years so who gives a shit, right?)

Ugh publicly financed elections would seem to solve all our goddamn problems.

Thanks for nothing SCOTUS, you fucks.

citizen legislators! xp

all the Republican reps, for example, have signed sworn oaths to NEVER vote for ANY tax increase EVER under any circumstance - and since this is the party line, they just cycle a fresh crop in every few years and the voting patterns remain frozen. no one has any incentive to compromise.

xp

Shakey they dont have time. Thats why we legislate through propositions now. Makes everything easier so nobody has to make tough decisions.

http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t083827oovv.jpg

and then if you happen to actually get a rep you like in office, you have a law that tells you you can't keep them there! WTF

xp

propositions are a disaster. Prop 13 being the perfect example. Not to mention that we just end up with all these bullshit propositions that clog up the courts and eventually get struck down as unconstitutional (and then we amend/revise the constitution via proposition! which then totally fucks the state because no one actually understands the implications! brilliant!)

executive order to thread, pls

propositions are my favorite thing about california, now that i no longer live in california

Propositions, for those of you who know your CA history, we're implemented in the progressive era to insure that powerful money interests (railroads, primarly) couldn't entirely dominate the assmebly. Should the bar be higher for putting them on the ballot? Of course, but I wouldn't get rid of them entirely.

I have no problem w/the two term limit for President. The American Presidency is very, very powerful and FDR was the only president not to respect the tradition of a limit of two terms, and the last time he ran, he knew how ill he was - it was very irresponsible and it didn't particularly help his party groom new candidates.

I don't necessarily have a problem with term limits for Congress, either but I think they should be tailored to the institution. While one may fear life-long politicians, I also fear constant waves of susceptible neophytes, too, unless we get to some utopia where you could abrogate the First Amendment and put term limits on lobbyists careers, too. Maybe three terms for Senators and ten for Reps, say?

Should the bar be higher for putting them on the ballot? Of course, but I wouldn't get rid of them entirely.

yeah I agree with this

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works

I don't think the GOP understands how the government actually works - just look at how they mismanaged Iraq reconstruction, Katrina, the SEC, etc. during the Bush years. What they do understand is political theater. In that arena, they do have one natural advantage over the Dems. The Dems believe that government can be a positive force for change - that it has some role besides bombing Arabic-speaking countries back to the Stone Age and maintaining highways. Crafting good government policies is hard work and it takes up a lot of the Dems time. Meanwhile on the GOP side, their policy prescription is easy and universal: whatever the government is doing now, do less of. So that leaves them with lots of time to come up with good political theater: ie., misinformation, obstructionism, proposing symbolic measures that have good optics but do little.

As it is, any crackpot, single-issue group can put something on the ballot, banning us from eating horse-flesh or whatever, instead of concetrating on exerting political pressure on our representatives in the Assembly or State Senate. The problem with democracy in a state of over 30 million people is that it will quickly become a demogoguic tyranny and the problem with the hybrid we have now is that instead of creating a people's escape valve for an unresponsive class of representatives, we regularly just bypass the normal channels of representation and plebescites and referenda are too often the tyrant's path to legitimacy.

yes but michael, back then, it was the railroads. now it is the homosexuals.

maintaining highways

I don't think the GOP even believes in this tbh

I don't think the GOP understands how the government actually works - just look at how they mismanaged Iraq reconstruction, Katrina, the SEC, etc. during the Bush years.

I think you are conflating "actually" with "supposed to" in my sentence.

and plebescites and referenda are too often the tyrant's path to legitimacy

what, you mean like installing an action movie star over a duly elected but corrupt and inept pol as governor

I'm not really sure how you can objectively measure which party knows how the government works better than the other. What metrics do you use, exactly? My suspicion is that both sides of the aisle think the other is better/worse than the other. I'm pretty sure most Republicans think that the Democrats are way better at ginning the system and creating a state of dependent citizens.

Basically, I am looking at this from the standpoint of "which party is the better obstructionist, given the checks and balances nature of Congress". My experience leads me to conclude that Democrats are more likely to let Republicans do whatever they want than Republicans are to let Democrats do whatever they want.

what, you mean like installing an action movie star over a duly elected but corrupt and inept pol as governor

Eh, I didn't vote for the Governator, but I give him the same C-, I gave Gray. It's neither's fault that the State is essentially, kind of like the U.S., ungovernable. Did you hear what Gray told Ahnold when he took office? Essentially, it was there are two things that will largely determine your popularity and success as Governor of California; how much snow falls in the Sierra (or rain) and how the global economy is doing, neither of which is under your control. "Have fun!"

haha classic

Arnold's been pretty good on the energy/ecology end of things, I'll give him that

I really think the whole Davis recall/Schwartzenegger election was kind fo a Bill the Cat gamble: A Desperate Choice for Desperate Times

And ever so slightly less of a dick on the parole end of things, too.

what do people make of this?

sounds pretty right-on to me at first glance

Basically, I think that if a hugely famous and charismatic moderate Republican with no real obligations to the State Republican party can't get anything done, no-one can. The Repubs are far too tea-baggish/Xtianist and the Dems too beholden to their own constituent interests to actually get naything reformed.

Someone was saying the other day that if banks get too small to fail, maybe we should make them smaller.

what do people make of this?

sounds pretty right-on to me at first glance

Give O some credit. This is much tougher than anything people were contemplating happening this year.

Er, I meant too big to fail...

I like the first version better.

speaking of constituent interest: guessing this has been discussed but what about small pop states and the level of consituent scrutiny? it seems like dudes like Burns enjoyed influence that was "undue" not just becuase he represented much less people than say Clinton, but also because those people -didn't pay as much attn-

I am happy to generalize and say that yr avg rural Western voter is less civically engaged with natl politics than someone in Cali, and has fewer outlets for unbiased information. also, they're really just physically far away from where politics happens (both in state and nationally). couple that with highly influential extractive industries and you've got major pressure points for interests opposed to "progressive" change.

I guess this is what you refer to Danny Boy?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/relieved.php

Again, this is something that has actually been made law today:

Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, an author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, called the ruling “a terrible mistake.”

“Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns,” said Mr. Feingold, a Democrat.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a longtime opponent of that law, praised the Court’s decision as “an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.”President Obama issued a statement calling on Congress to “develop a forceful response to this decision.”

“With its ruling today,” he said, “the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp

I hadn't read that but yes, that is exactly what I am referring to.

like why doesn't Alaska look like fucking Norway, wrt social services? they're sitting on a ton of oil and other resources, they should be taxing the -shit- out of the companies that operate there, and yet they don't. it's not like they're gonna take their business elsewhere! you're ALASKA. but instead you get the Alaska general fund (or whatever it's called) which is a basically a really cheap bribe and that very likely does little to improve the lot of alaskans.

Jesus that ruling is just horrible

not if we can get Doctor Bronner to headline a coalition dedicated to buying Congress seats

we have some of the worst human beings on our supreme court

and i hate the court most when kennedy writes the opinion

“the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

It is a victory for those industries and the pols who openly accept money for their influence.

Fucking pathetic.

I know, some will say "Big deal, politicians have always been bought and sold by corporations."

But that was a century when there WERE limits on corporate political spending. What's coming will make that seem like the GOLDEN ERA of true democracy.

Fucking lead the charge, Obama. DEMAND change. Use your bully pulpit. Have the GS guys that you nominated renounce Big Banks.

It's such an obvious issue, it ties into the populist rage. It allows him to fite Congress, too.

If special interest purchasing (and here's looking at you, Ben Fucking Nelson) is so bad, why does everyone keep accepting the bribes?

I see what Stevens is doing: he's framing his dissent around the conservative SCOTUS of pre-1935's curious decision to treat corporations as "persons," and as such deserving Fourteenth Amendment protection.

to get all Morbs for a second, Obama's the last guy who should be protesting here. Wall Street had lined his pockets for months before 2008.

And he was jerking off the health care industry under the table trying to get a deal done with HCR too

Guys, we can make this Court ruling work for us. See, all we need is a bunch of TV ads endorsing GOP candidates paid for by, say, the adult video industry, or PETA, and we can ensure keeping them out of office.

Also, this shit makes me want to destroy capitalism forever. Like, fuck corporate personhood, and fuck limited liability for officers and shareholders.

i know maybe we should all lobby our states to take away limited liability and tax corporations like persons

it'll work

http://people-press.org/reports/images/578-20.gif

from here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/in-health-care-reform-new-iraq-war.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

look at the boldface among those who favor, obv

We could get mobs in the streets over this SCOTUS decision if only they'd also ruled Conan O'Brien can't make contributions.

Dalia Lithwick is awesome on this ruling: http://www.slate.com/id/2242208/

btw lol I said Burns (Monty) when I meant Stevens (Ted)

anyway, carry on

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

was this decis

I see what Stevens is doing: he's framing his dissent around the conservative SCOTUS of pre-1935's curious decision to treat corporations as "persons," and as such deserving Fourteenth Amendment protection.

is this what the majority opinion is based on? that is, that spending limits are infringing on the first amendment rights of corporations?

I was hoping it wasn't because that is just so patently disgusting.

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

ignore iPhone gaffe plz

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

I dunno but surely that's something you could legislate without setting constitutional precedent: just pass a law that saws ppl can sue corps. or does being suable somehow -necessarily- require personhood?

lol iphone

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

I don't know, a lot of horrible shit has happened in the government in the past 10 years, but can someone please explain to me why this SCOTUS thing isn't WAYYYYYY worse than any healthcare bill failing and possibly the worst of the last decade?

also, this. maybe Im just being excitable but it seems to me like this ruling will have long term effects that will be waaaay more sinister than not passing healthcare.

I am being sabotaged by my iPhones corporate handlers.

u r a patsy

well, good thing i already decided to never vote again.

I dunno but surely that's something you could legislate without setting constitutional precedent: just pass a law that saws ppl can sue corps. or does being suable somehow -necessarily- require personhood?

I think the idea is, in order to hold a corporation legally responsible for something, they have to be considered an entity - to fit a sort of legal definition of personhood, therefore, and if you want somebody to bear the brunt of personhood, you have to also give them the benefits thereof

is this what the majority opinion is based on? that is, that spending limits are infringing on the first amendment rights of corporations?

Yup.

The pre-FDR courts treated corporations as people for almost fifty years.

yeah the legalese problem is that you can't sue an amorphous group of people - if you don't consider a corporation a "person", who do you sue? the company's employees? the shareholders? just the CEOs? obviously the simplest thing is to just treat them like a person. unfortunately, that has totally horrible ramifications, like this ruling.

x-posts

like can someone give me a plausible worst case scenario? like does this mean that, say, the pro Corp candidate in a given election can now a) directly receive funding or b) indirectly receive support in the form of advertising and campaign support paid for entirely by corporate interests? like can corporations now spend as much as they want on television advertising hat supports their candidate as long as they mutter "paid for by such and such citizen group for that guy"? what's changed?

sorry for being so questiony but I'm on iPhone and in class and can't open up five billion tabs

isn't corporate personhood as a legal concept important for individuals who want to sue corporations?

not totally sure but i think it's sort of the opposite, really. because the officers and board members of corporations are essentially protected from individual liability when they're acting on behalf of the company -- which makes it harder to hold them accountable and gives them less to fear when they're contemplating their sinister machinations.

and a plaintiff is basically forced to sue the corporation, which will have better resources and much deeper pockets than any idividual employee or director.

i, dividual

also can we not just figure out some way around that legal ish? like, -since you are a corporation- you a) ARE suable and b) ARE NOT entitled to the rights of a real person. why would this be offensive??? just declare this by fiat! no actual persons rights are going to be trod upon by explicitly declaring what corps are and are not entitled to wrt constitutional rights

tipsy OTM.

there's a good reason that we treat corporations as an entity (not like a person) and that's partially why we restrict their "free speech"--because they are not people. And yes, we restrict "free speech" too.

but didn't we just unrestrict their free speech?

The Daily Show Calls It: 'Scott Brown Is Now Apparently The 45th President Of These United States Of America!'

but didn't we just unrestrict their free speech?

no, we gave them the freedom to marry the legislator of their choice. don't be a bigot.

There's nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to say we can't discriminate against legal 'persons' based on their being corporations and there's nothing inherent to free speech that says you can outspend everybody else based on the depth of your pockets. This is corproate dick-sucking at its most obvious and unbecoming to anyone who wants to call themselves a republican. Limited-liablity is a powerful and useful tool for development but God help me if I can find a compelling reason why such nebulous groups should trump flesh and blood citizens.

Because they...generate more revenue?

was gonna start reading the opinion(s) but they're 183 pages....maybe later

http://www.paulwilson.ca/pw_books/covers/skvorecky_republic_sm.jpg

like does this mean that, say, the pro Corp candidate in a given election can now a) directly receive funding or b) indirectly receive support in the form of advertising and campaign support paid for entirely by corporate interests?

I see no one answered this (the answer is "b", btw) What's different is that corporations can now do this directly (ie, they don't need to underwrite some other amorphous PAC, they can just say "paid for by Exxon/Mobil or whoever), and previous restrictions (amounts, timing, etc.) are lifted.

really i'd prefer it said exxon/mobil than americans for clean energy or whatever front group name they come up with, but i don't imagine this is going to change that.

but see prior to this ruling there were limits on how much money they could give to their chosen front group, and limits on how/when/on what that money could be spent. those limits are now gone.

conservative classmate just told me that he thought I'd be excited because now unions can pay for whatever they want too! unions with their actual hundreds of billions of dollars! unions whose influence is derived almost solely from their ability to determine the voting habits of their members! unions the equally positioned and powerful opponent of corporate freedom!

even playing field guys!!!!!

basically, now Exxon/Mobil can operate their own, totally unregulated political action committee arm, the same way they would run any other division of their company. they can dump as much money into it as they want, and they can spend it however they want.

and fwiw obviously corporations' funding pool completely dwarfs the unions'
x-post

so would i in that i wish that loophole re: front groups and issue ads had never existed in the first place but iirc it came out of the earlier BCRA case mcconnell v. FEC? not sure about that though xpostss

its kind of mind-boggling that any single individual could think this is good for the country.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-2/president-camancho-idiocracy.jpg

I can't wait who get's the naming rights for the Republic first.

Walmart's United States of America!

™

DFW OTM

Of course, if they're smart they'll action off everything:

Smith and Wesson's United States Army

Proctor & Gamble's U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Could be fun, no?

The Roche Center for Disease Control

The Goldman Sachs Department of Treasury has a nice ring to it

I worry that the former Klansman from West Virginia has taken up a lot of the good real estate in his home state. Maybe he can sell his interest.

The Johnson & Johnson Department of Health and Human Services

srsly guys, Jennifer Government is coming true

but see prior to this ruling there were limits on how much money they could give to their chosen front group, and limits on how/when/on what that money could be spent. those limits are now gone.

yes and no. 527 contributions were still unlimited, weren't they? they have more restrictions -- have to be about "issues," can't coordinate their campaigns with the candidates, etc -- but those were already pretty fictitious. i'm not saying this ruling isn't terrible, both as law and in its practical effects, it definitely is. it means every election from here on out will probably set new spending records. but it's also true that we've already kind of been on that path.

Maybe it will take something like obscene amounts of corporate ad spending to finally wake this country up to public financing of elections.

Water rolling downhill, etc.

There are various dodges that go way beyond funding advertising. The junkets still exist in one form or another, and those are actually far more nefarious.

xpost

yeah, just like it took spending twice as much as most countries on health care to wake us up to the need for a single-payer system...

anyway, the only real solace i can see is that a lot of corporations are run by idiots. they're as likely to blow themselves up as rule the world.

the taxpayers will always be there to bail them out.

well yeah. obviously. and then we get back a tiny bit of it on our 401k's. until the market collapses again.

yeah we're basically screwed, is i think the deal here. probably more productive to argue about animal collective.

some lines should not be crossed imo

can we sue an animal collective?

i'm in

it can be a class action

AC is the one thing that's more tiresome than cable pundits

Ahem.

50 years from now history will look back on this as the founding moment of the AntiAC party

also the idea of corporations as slaves is kind of fascinating!

AnitAC isn't as catchy as Teabagger

The Supreme Court justices have proven to be superb novelists in the last hundred years.

AnimalBagger

also the idea of corporations as slaves is kind of fascinating!

yeah that turned my head a little

"It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own." -Senate Democratic memo.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/dem-talking-points-were-screwed.php

I mean, reading Kennedy's stirring language you'd think he was Holmes or Black defending the sacredness of free speech until you study it and think, "Uh, what?!"

so much headdesk

Wonder if Nader is having a moment of consideration about helping give us Alito and Roberts.

Probably not, but...

piss off x 1,000,000,000

parrots like you have made the donkeys what they are.

morbs that is a pretty ambitious piss off plan, do u think we can compromise and bring it down to 100,000 with an individual mandate 2 pick up the slack?

morbs you've certainly relished the last couple of days, needling all of us benighted saps, nobody's told you to piss off.

I didn't repeat some pathetic shart of an Al fucking Gore excuse.

but he's right. Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader Nader

and remember, JFK didn't deserve to get his head blown off.

maybe if naderites were a little ruder back in 2000, things would be different. something to consider anyway.

way to go, Matt; you broke Dr Morbius

Matt is already living in Idiocracy

http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content07/malfunctioning-eddie.jpg

if i remember my salad days in 2000, one of the intra-left arguments against nader was "the supreme court matters." it's all so funny now, to think back.

morbs is right tho, that in a very close election (or very close anything!) every single little problem looks decisive. was it nader's fault? absolutely. but it was also al gore's. and bill clinton's. and karl rovess. and the supreme court's.

this seems zeitgeisty:

Air America Filing For Bankruptcy, Ceasing Live Broadcasts

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/air-america-filing-for-bankruptcy-ceasing-live-broadcasts.php?ref=fpbrk

"It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own." -Senate Democratic memo.

wtf.

also the idea of corporations as slaves is kind of fascinating!

yeah that turned my head a little

This is an important fact that needs to be remembered, that the amendment that 'freed the slaves' had in the late 19th century been used by corporations to defend their actions FAR more than by ex-slaves to defend their rights as free citizens. I wish I would find this book I have with the exact figure but it's something like 99% of all cases it was a corporation citing the 14th.

really bummed that some people are losing their jobs @ air america. but i don't think too many people listened to the actual radio part of it? i tried, when it started out, and then went back to NPR (nice polite republicans, i know)

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Kjbi5BaKG3_EJM%3Ahttp://www.blobbysblog.com/uploaded_images/MalibuStaceyGP1-790419.gif

"math is hard. let's go shopping!"

xp

in positive news, i have heard some good things about bank regulation that was announced today.. WSJ now part of news corp. does not seem to like it, i wonder why (lede is very fair and balanced, isn't it.)

Proposal Set to Curb Bank Giants

President Barack Obama on Thursday is expected to propose new limits on the size and risk taken by the country's biggest banks, marking the administration's latest assault on Wall Street in what could mark a return, at least in spirit, to some of the curbs on finance put in place during the Great Depression, according to congressional sources and administration officials.

already ref'd upthread

hmm wait no that was a different angle about limiting investment sorry

some pathetic shart of an Al fucking Gore

: D

i suppose theres a special circle of hell for people who were so desperate to avoid bush that they vote-swapped for nader.

Ah, Nietzsche's eternal return...

ezra klein has been on-point about what a bunch of tards the democrats are

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

This is an important fact that needs to be remembered, that the amendment that 'freed the slaves' had in the late 19th century been used by corporations to defend their actions FAR more than by ex-slaves to defend their rights as free citizens. I wish I would find this book I have with the exact figure but it's something like 99% of all cases it was a corporation citing the 14th.

Yes, then the infamous Lochner case showed that something called "liberty of contract" existed in the Constitution. The conservatives were the judicial activists then.

"then"

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/grijalva-wont-support-senate-bill-lays-out-another-option.php

implosion

yglesias:
Brief trip to the Hill confirms that everything is fucked

i love paul grijalva but he must be smoking something if he thinks that will work

That Yglesias post is from yesterday, no?

but i understand how PISSED OFF he & the rest of the progressive caucus must be right now--essentially the senate (and the massachusetts democratic party) has birthed a wussy, moderate bill and lain it at the feet of house democrats and said "pass this... or else"

and remember, JFK didn't deserve to get his head blown off.― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:58 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol wut

But Justice Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections.

Someone posted this on /. without a source. Is it true?

it's funny that we got this decision 2 days after Morbs said the SCOTUS would never overrule Roe.

Oh, and brace yourselves: Stevens might well retire this year.

sometimes I wonder if the Supreme Court justices plot to shorten each others' lives

like "oh man, gotta outlive Scalia, maybe I should set some boobytraps in his office"

Stevens might well retire this year.

no problem, i'm sure scott brown will vote for whatever nice moderate member of the federalist society obama nominates.

Nuclear option-> Healthcare Reform = (Dems grow balls + Give millions health insurance) = Scare + intimidate Repubs/Impress Dem voters

Stevens might well retire this year.

no problem, i'm sure scott brown will vote for whatever nice moderate member of the federalist society obama nominates.

― hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:01 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The Supreme Court is a different ball of wax though. Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through, and Bush got Alito through with no problems. As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

yeah i was being flip, although at the moment, who knows? republicans seem sure they're about to reconquer the universe, they might not be in a mood to do anything at all. assuming they make real gains in the midterms, then their entire focus will shift to drumming obama right out of the white house.

why on earth would you count on that now

Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through,

But remember: Clinton actually called Orrin Hatch and asked him which nominee least offended him (Hatch). He actually screened Ginsburg and Breyer with the GOP minority.

which I find incredible. Did he just not research her at all?

Also, Clinton totally half-assed the nomination process.

The Supreme Court is a different ball of wax though. Somehow Clinton got Ginsburg through, and Bush got Alito through with no problems. As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

Clinton was bolder than Obama in practice if not in rhetoric imo. I can't imagine Obama even trying to pass something as watered-down as DADT. I'm no Clinton stan but I think there were some areas in which his liberal bona fides were pretty meaningful to him.

As long as the candidate doesn't embarrass themselves, they get confirmed.

lol putting a pube on someones coke doesnt fall under 'embarassment' I suppose.

which I find incredible. Did he just not research her at all?

― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:21 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

my cynical guess would be that it is not really about ideology or jurisprudence but whether the opposition can find something juicy and base-happy to attack the nominee over.

yeah that's what I meant by not embarrassing yourself. Arguments about judicial ideology aren't enough to torpedo a candidate.

PS- The explanation I've always heard for the Thomas thing is that his "modern lynching" comment scared them off. Still surprising that he pulled it off (and that they didn't just reload with a different, equally conservative candidate).

oh wait it was "high-tech lynching" I think, which is more nonsensical.

Ginsberg, like Sotomayor, is a liberal who's Tough On Crime.

"lol"

http://www.businessinsider.com/big-banks-have-already-figured-out-the-loophole-in-obamas-new-rules-2010-1

"haha yay"

totally thought that banner said "Clusterfuck"

the banks may be doing more to promote the idea of an activist government than any politician is capable of right now

kinda stupid for banks to be all "haha btw we already know how to get around your silly law! nyah!" in public, cuz won't that just bring the hammer down on them harder when it comes time to enact these regs...? plus the bad PR?

yeah but balance that against the need to reassure their investors: "don't worry folks, this gravy train will keep on rollin'!"

plus i think the banks figure that if the hammer hasn't dropped by now, there probably isn't really a hammer. and what are the odds that they're wrong?

id think regardless of loopholes the banks are betting on the GOP refusing to pass any legislation

looking like a good bet right about now

unfortunately

what balls look like: a partial view

seldom so proud to be a former iowan

ditto unfortunately.

where are you now, Eisbaer? IN right?

would like to see further displays of balls plz

the government could always just ignore the ruling, as well. They've done it a few times before.

NJ, John D.

Legislation will fix the problem (e.g. Lilly Leadbetter Act).

and i was dittoing "unfortunately" to shakey's assertion that banks have nothing to fear by being in-yer-face and fuck-you to all this bank reg tough talk from Obama today.

well, your winters are a little less grueling anyway.

would like to see further displays of balls plz

Boswell can be pretty goddamn rad. I have personal experience of dude goin' out of his way for his constituents. he has zero bigger-office ambitions afaik but as a dude he counts as a pretty solid dude imo.

it's funny that we got this decision 2 days after Morbs said the SCOTUS would never overrule Roe.

You are all Democrat, you poor, sad kid.

I'll be back after Blame Nader expiration day.

btw as a First Amendment absolutist I have some sympathy for SCOTUS' ruling, and am pretty sure that Hugo Black, who was second to none in defending the First Amendment, would have joined the majority; but this is a classic "originalist" quandary. Is the Constitution supposed to protect the powerless and those without access to the system, or everyone (including corporations)?

at this point, IF i stay politically aware/involved at all any more, i'm more likely to go the Clay Davis route (very easy perhaps, since i live in one of the most infamously crooked counties in the country) and just get in to get mine (and my family's) and leave the idealistic shit to the corny indie fuXors who'll learn their lessons the hard way.

this decision has fuck-all to do w/Roe. Republicans don't want anything to do with the personal & political repercussions of overturning Roe; it must, for them, remain permanently on the table. without it, they're kinda fucked. they'll restrict & restrict & restrict but there'll never be any serious effort to overturn; it would cost them one of their key issues.

The answer, I guess, is to send McCain-Feingold back to Congress and plug your ears and eyes come November (thank god I don't have cable).

nb the Democrats will always be there to help them restrict Roe even further, and none of their supporters will ever charge them so much as one dollar in contributions for it. for the partisans of both parties, Roe exists mainly as a rallying point; the substance of it is only interesting to extremists on either side. the particulars of it are tradable for votes & contributions.

that's why i generally don't care about culture war issues -- i care about money issues, and besides this filling the coffers of the worst elements of BOTH parties from bona-fide bad actors it will also keep the money flowing from the pro/anti-Roe folks (which i wouldn't be at all surprised if, like the Dems w/ HCR, the GOP would go all pussified if Roe's repeal was within inches of their grasp).

Legislation will fix the problem (e.g. Lilly Leadbetter Act).― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 22, 2010 12:56 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't think this is possible, because it's a First Amendment issue, not an issue of a vaguely written law.

nb the Democrats will always be there to help them restrict Roe even further, and none of their supporters will ever charge them so much as one dollar in contributions for it. for the partisans of both parties, Roe exists mainly as a rallying point; the substance of it is only interesting to extremists on either side. the particulars of it are tradable for votes & contributions.

― Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Friday, January 22, 2010 1:03 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You know that it was one vote away from being overturned when Kennedy shocked everyone and flipped, right?

And you know Thomas and Scalia continually dissent and say it should be overturned?