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

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