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

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