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

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"