US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

i think that point is often otm but i dont think it actually contradicts a lot of what im saying

but you can't preserve a right by selling half of it. which again has been the Dem strategy since Reagan and is really aggressively the Dem strategy now - invoke the fear of overturning Roe as an excuse to not defend the already-established right to abortion in every state. when the budget deal stripped DC of funding for abortion, 28 women in DC who were scheduled for abortions the next day couldn't get them. that is reality; NNAF raised enough money to pay for a few of them, and may yet raise enough to pay for more, but the ground is conceded and won't be won back - who's going to win it back? not the party that nominally supports these women's right to abortion access; they already traded that right away!

I seem to recall when South Dakota voted for that crazy draconian abortion bill a few years ago (don't remember the details), that shit got overturned fast following a groundswell of objection. If the right has learned anything from its piecemeal approach to banning abortion, is that with a little bit here and a little bit there, public outcry will never (or likely won't) ever hit a critical mass of outrage. In this sense it's really ingenious to avoid a Supreme battle, since a Supreme Court overturning Row v. Wade would be like what went on in Madison over labor on a national scale. I'm not old enough to remember first hand, but the era of the back-alley abortion was muffled/muted by shame and secrecy. I don't think anger would simmer underground in 2011. It'd explode. I'd explode.

that is OTM. While Scalia and Thomas (dunno about Alito frankly) are up for the fight, I just don't think Roberts wants to overturn Roe -- and anti-abortionists know this.

well like i said, there's a lot of unfriendly judicial territory between the local level and the supremes.

Get cracking on those recess appointments, Mr. President!

the establishment right certainly doesn't want roe v wade overturned. year-in-year-out they get elected on social issues, particularly that one, & pass continued tax reductions. thats an engine for big business basically

the establishment right certainly doesn't want roe v wade overturned. year-in-year-out they get elected on social issues, particularly that one, & pass continued tax reductions. thats an engine for big business basically

this is true. but what they are accomplishing at the state level is genuinely appalling

Will Dems bungle getting the word out on Ryan's Medicare plan:

Democrats are banking that the Ryan plan will be politically toxic for the GOP. But these two polls suggest that won't necessarily be the case: the GOP's plan could still have widespread appeal unless Democrats manage to communicate exactly how the specifics of RyanCare would impact ordinary Americans. The Dems faced the same dilemma when it came to federal health reform: Americans tend to feel positive about many of the specific benefits of the Affordable Care Act, but the Republicans have continued to succeed in making them feel queasy about the law overall. So Democrats shouldn't simply assume that Americans will recoil at RyanCare at first blush.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/poll-public-paul-ryan-medicare

Will Dems bungle getting the word out on Ryan's Medicare plan:

you forgot the word "how"

My god, I hate the word "banking" – in every sense.

lol i dunno, it conotes a fitting sense of "betting", esp given recent events

speaking of citizens united....

Former Senator Russ Feingold, a campaign finance purist who refused outside support in his own campaigns, sharply criticized Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, the new groups that will take unlimited, and partly undisclosed, money to support President Obama's re-election campaign.

"Democrats who mirror the right-wing tactics of Karl Rove and David Koch do our nation no favors. Our democracy is best served by rejecting the fundamentally corrupt strategy of embracing unlimited corporate influence," said Feingold, who now heads Progressives United.

Reflecting the abruptness of the Democrats' pivot on the question of secret cash -- a central talking point in the 2010 election -- a group that backs Democrats on campaign finance issues put out a press release this morning headed, "Campaign Watchdog: Priorities USA Not Hypocritical."

"In order to change the rules of the game, we need to engage in the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. To act otherwise after Citizens United is to take a knife to a gunfight," David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, said in the release.

In order to change the rules of the game, we need to engage in the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. To act otherwise after Citizens United is to take a knife to a gunfight

I agree with that stance 100% but I am the most pragmatic idealist on earth, so

lets skip the next 50 posts by saying me too, morbs & aerosmith disagree

and waiting for those folks to change the rules of the game is like waiting for the Soviet state to collapse, so give it 70 years.

xp, thats all

"If you can't beat em, join em" is a good enough ethos if you have actually tried in earnest to "beat em"... something Feingold's been trying to do for decades. I just wish all that money was being raised for a primary challenger and not going to Obama's campaign war chest.

the townhall videos thinkprogress upped today are fairly heartening. compared to the rednecks screaming at democratic townhall meetings last summer, people spanking the republicans these days over their trickle down bullshit seem like the soul of decency

beltway journos are trying to be all cynical abt it cause they're getting the same moveon emails the activists are, but its like come on yall you don't get to be dicks abt this one just cause you were asleep at the wheel the first time around

beltway journos can eat a bag of dicks

lets skip the next 50 posts by saying me too, morbs & aerosmith disagree

lol I am on board w/this strategy, appreciate the time-saving move

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/daniels_to_sign_bill_stripping_federal_funds_from.php

daniels to sign the anti-PP bill

jesus

Let's punish the shit out of Planned Parenthood for providing legal medical services to women (and to men - I had my vasectomy done there). Why? Because we don't like them doing it!

Bbbbbbbut they perform abortions and that's taking a life so they must be punished!

Doesn't surprise me that Daniels would sign this based on his weasel-like answers defending his role in the Bush administration regarding the destrction of the surplus and the role of tax cuts for the rich and his incorrect calculations for the cost of 2 off the book wars.

So, the GOP hates abortions, contraception, cancer screening & prevention, social workers, outpatient procedures of many varieties and family planning information and pamphlets. I don't think even the Vatican is that hardline...

feel like trump thinks he's going bullworth, but deep down inside just wants beatty's hairline

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/donald-talks-dirty-ladies-trump-laun

"you're not gonna raise that fucking price!"

what a scumbag!

Bbbbbbbut they perform abortions and that's taking a life so they must be punished!

Must be something else because significantly cutting defense spending is off the table.

https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_DonationFormOneTimeGift

FYI

(you can also click over to the monthly donation tab from there)

daniels to sign the anti-PP bill

He kind of had to if he wants to run for prez. Still a dick move, tho.

if the Planned Parenthood bill that only Jackie Speier spoke out against in the House (because it wasn't going to pass the Senate anyway, so why spend political capital on it) had been filibustered, we'd be looking at a different climate. Republicans know that almost nobody is willing to speak up for funding women's health. DJP otm: get out your pocketbooks and give PP money. Or vote in people who'll filibuster shit like H. Con. Res 36 instead of going with "well, it'll never pass the house so why fight it here?" --that kind of cowardice has real cost at the state level io

"io" is "imo" with the "m" reserved to call somebody a motherfucker with later

but i wanna call somebody a motherfucker NOW

here for you

wiiiiide open

eh, think i'm gonna save it for a guy who tries to legislate against women's health in a transparent bid for higher political office, you know any guys like that?

"I will sign HEA 1210 when it reaches my desk a week or so from now. I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position. The principle involved commands the support of an overwhelming majority of Hoosiers, as reflected in greater than 2:1 bipartisan votes in both legislative chambers.

bad form ILX, overwhelming majority support
depressing shit; you can only hope that it burnishes support etc but y'know

Losing my shit on fb, tbh.

righties hauling out all the Glenn Beck style "did you know Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist" stuff about this

I'm just trying not to think about it. thread subtitle otm along w/"good luck USA"

How liberal is Obama? Nate Silver crunches the numbers. According to his conclusions: Obama " rates as being slightly more conservative than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, but slightly more liberal than Lyndon Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman." Which makes no sense to me.

On the other hand, "the Republican platform has shifted significantly toward the right" in recent years.

I would have thought you'd seize on this:

"Nevertheless, there is some support for the notion that Democratic presidents take positions that--while still quite liberal--are at least somewhat more amenable to compromise. By contrast, Republican presidents push as hard as they can to the right and let the chips fall where they may. A lot of liberals advocate that Mr. Obama should take a page out of the Republican playbook..."

Anyway, while I agree that his conclusions are counter-intuitive, good for Silver. He comes out of the field of sabermetric baseball analysis, so he does one thing that I think some of you guys rarely do: he provides some context. Obama doesn't govern in a vacuum, and his context is worlds away from LBJ's. Saying Obama is this, that, or the other without accounting for that context is like saying Dante Bichette was a great power hitter because he once hit 40 home runs.

I spent a fun/sad night with colleagues last night & we talked about the ~state of the nation~. These are pretty lefty folks & I was stuck by how futile we're feeling it is to fight the plutocracy. All of us are sorta kinda maybe giving up on the USA as a good place for our children to make roots, because the ruling class wants the rest of us to be peasants & the electorate seems more or less willing to go along with that (at least wrt their votes). We're never going to be rich enough to pay for college & health care & retirement in this country, & we're all amongst the most educated of Americans, employed in good, steady jobs. I guess we chose badly by not going to Wall Street to work when we had the chance, but if that's the only way to make it in America now...that's what I mean about giving up on this place.

According to his conclusions: Obama " rates as being slightly more conservative than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, but slightly more liberal than Lyndon Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman." Which makes no sense to me.

How does that make no sense?

i guess it depends on what one values most in liberalism -- if you're onboard for traditional Democratic economics, then Obama clearly falls short of FDR, Truman and LBJ.

but these barely statistically significant numbers that are inherently flawed say otherwise!

silly article. i like his basketball writing tho

Silly because he comes to a conclusion you don't endorse. That's how the Baseball Digest mindset used to brush aside Bill James in the late '70s and early '80s.

I was going to answer in my own words, but I just read this comment on Silver's story:

What kind of political analysis system pays absolutely no attention to how an administration behaves on issues that don’t go to a congressional vote? How does DW-NOMINATE rate the treatment of Bradley Manning, the bait and switch about open government, the selling out of Americans to the pharmaceutical companies in a back room deal within days of being sworn in, the bait and switch about closing Guantanamo, continuing the draconian special rendition program, or his cabinet appointments like GE CEO, Immelt, to job czar after the man laid off 20% of his American workforce in order to allow GE to avoid ALL taxes, or Obama’s decision to extend those devastating tax cuts for billionaires

Forget its stridency. If we examine the problems which are exclusive to the executive branch, as this reader does, the DW-NOMINATE stuff crumbles a bit.

no, silly because he uses a bunch of made-up numbers that he admits aren't that accurate anyway xp

yeah but so do fdr and lbj